Commonwealth v. Cotto
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
562 Pa. 32, 753 A.2d 217 (2000)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Pennsylvania had a direct-file statute that caused certain crimes, including any crime committed with a deadly weapon, to be filed directly in adult criminal court if the defendant was 15 years old or older. However, the state also had a reverse-certification statute that allowed criminal courts to certify a minor as a juvenile and transfer the case to juvenile court if the minor could show that transferring the case would serve the public interest. The reverse-certification statute identified a list of factors that the criminal court should consider in order to determine whether a transfer would serve the public interest. Under the direct-file statute, charges against 15-year-old Abraham Cotto (defendant) for armed robbery were filed in criminal court. Under the reverse-certification statute, Cotto moved to be certified as a juvenile and to have his case transferred to juvenile court. The criminal court considered the statutory factors and denied Cotto’s transfer request. Cotto pleaded guilty and appealed only the order denying transfer, arguing that the reverse-certification statute was unconstitutional because (1) the serve-the-public-interest standard was vague and (2) putting the burden on a minor to justify a transfer to juvenile court violated a minor’s due-process rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Castille, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
