Ricardo L. Noble v. Pennsylvania

QuESTXO^-S PKESertTW For UPii rb c\bvi5e d-C5 c-reA- t"on by not ciojC^rfA^ UZr-Hx FagF Ht^d; <\4~ JWVen/Je cZFer cv ppe llant'5 Peie/i re/io/z^ Zn /ze^He/i cZ/tu V&can-pe^ jj}e_onV/a<i^/i he cU.’mei ta ct^-oe r-Hr'F’y/'nj appellant—ro juven/’le Sf^PenA ?h ) ?■ 7^ l^cauAe ZFuzcv-S proven -Fods.c, Hn5 crny sen+e/tce or Co/i(//'<spZo/t on SAi d rh^r^r ZA.<xA^\y drjWui sp-tem i'5 ill<=-^(\} u^coflH/ZuZ/ora|? nuH a a A V o l tb ? Court dbu^e J75 orcin?rv by faulty 1~t> ‘fi'itd tXa-fLe Coc<x(7te/mxxrjCcCLK,CK M^<CPeA C<?c4 Pe A u/as r/te FPec-Hite/pre.Jud) ced (I b y m 4bc tdas 1 ^p(Xtina S ^.n y e h. g e rvle/n^rckA ckutcm ZUpa^eHaKf Zees no +-~ d-G/i^z bejTt^ Qui )iy U7i + h<?ap G^fls Kn^cu/edjje or consent, deS^/Pe ^nowi~K^. ■PhoA- &^ppeMcutt' c\lu^«yS $p<%PeZs.^ouiPAe ev/^Ae/tcG/’roi/e<0 H-€ f s ii4ixoc.e^t~ of c<il Ck/xr^rs^ 5-z P/P Coyf'ir abvGse- jP^cy-ei'i’GA by ■fcttlhlg tv ff~nj Ph<xV (Zapta dk4ctt~<^i~e<£u ^t^ir/tey p^ab^rj- &<xrb^t~o) idef f-ec^t/'e/prejo. Arced appelXam^- ^.o j-£> (bO yea.s~ /.&.ni:eetce 7n 5e/t't^’i<lce /VL-et^torGcn^fn bJi''PKoat~ Q.ppe4lcuif^S prwupeb-j<l or c^seni} +h&h O-f pella^ps pe^ied <2> bjecy-pon S fe/? l+earin^ J y* PM C-ovtrf' abxA^*2- d-iscr~eFt~ron by t~v F/aA+ c^c^/n^/mcxrZjuancK aAATcP-ed aF PoFH^ Qfabee F bcCt bdcKS rnerFFecp} by iA?/Ph hoi A 7< X3C.U m ^ztfs and- reFvisfn^ com^Ku/ci ecef-e <xtppeJl<mf~ a.te&tzt' C-<a_sexT