Court Opinion

ID: 9906988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 17:25:27.742541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:29.788503
License: Public Domain

J- S20027-23

NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION -SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                               IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                                  PENNSYLVANIA

                     V.

 JEMEIL MURPHY

                             Appellant                      No. 926 EDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 22, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0006738-2019

BEFORE:        DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY DUBOW, J.:                             FILED DECEMBER 5, 2023

      I agree with the Majority's analysis and decision to grant Appellant a

new   trial.    I.        however,   disagree   that   we    are   authorized   to " address

[Appellant's] other issues from trial mindful that they may arise again on

remand." Maj. at 16.            The Majority's analysis of these issues is advisory and

we lack the authority to address them. See Commonwealth v. Enix, 192

A.3d 78, 84 n.5 ( Pa. Super. 2018) ( observing, after granting a new trial, that

"this Court may not provide advisory opinions to address issues that may arise

in future cases" ( citations omitted)).

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.