Commonwealth ex rel. Hovis v. Ashe

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Hovis v. Ashe

70 A.2d 630, 364 Pa. 81, 1950 Pa. LEXIS 320

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 17, 1950

DocketAppeal, No. 28

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 70 A.2d 630 (Commonwealth ex rel. Hovis v. Ashe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth ex rel. Hovis v. Ashe, 70 A.2d 630, 364 Pa. 81, 1950 Pa. LEXIS 320 (Pa. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We granted an allocatur in this case in order that the issue of fact as to whether the relator was arbitrarily refused counsel at trial, which the petitioner averred and the district attorney denied, might be definitely re[82]*82solved. We now have the detailed recollection of the learned trial judge before whom the relator entered his plea óf guilty to the indictments whereon he is now under sentence. The trial judge states that not only did he not refuse the relator counsel at trial but, on the contrary, that he advised him of his right to be represented by counsel and offered to appoint counsel for him which offer the relator expressly declined. In the state of the proofs, it is, therefore, apparent that the relator failed to sustain the burden of establishing the truth of his cognate allegation. The order of the Superior Court is affirmed on the law which the opinion for that court fully sets forth.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

We granted an allocatur in this case in order that the issue of fact as to whether the relator was arbitrarily refused counsel at trial, which the petitioner averred and the district attorney denied, might be definitely re[82]*82solved. We now have the detailed recollection of the learned trial judge before whom the relator entered his plea óf guilty to the indictments whereon he is now under sentence. The trial judge states that not only did he not refuse the relator counsel at trial but, on the contrary, that he advised him of his right to be represented by counsel and offered to appoint counsel for him which offer the relator expressly declined. In the state of the proofs, it is, therefore, apparent that the relator failed to sustain the burden of establishing the truth of his cognate allegation. The order of the Superior Court is affirmed on the law which the opinion for that court fully sets forth.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.2d 630, 364 Pa. 81, 1950 Pa. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-hovis-v-ashe-pa-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack