Commonwealth v. Bass

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Bass

417 A.2d 712, 273 Pa. Super. 405, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1807

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 4, 1980

DocketNo. 504

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 417 A.2d 712 (Commonwealth v. Bass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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 v. Bass, 417 A.2d 712, 273 Pa. Super. 405, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1807 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that: 1) the trial court improperly revoked probation for an alleged violation that occurred after expiration of the term of probation; 2) the notice he received of the alleged basis for revocation of probation did not satisfy constitutional standards; 3) his sentence is invalid because the sentencing court relied in part upon an improper consideration; and 4) trial counsel was ineffective. We remand for appointment of new counsel.

In this appeal, appellant is represented by counsel from the same public defender’s office which provided counsel for him in the probation revocation proceedings. Therefore, without deciding any of the issues raised, we remand to the trial court for appointment of new counsel, not associated with the Defender Association of Philadelphia, to represent appellant on the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and any other issue preserved for review and not finally litigated. See Commonwealth v. Patrick, 477 Pa. 284, 383 A.2d 935 (1978); Commonwealth v. Bergdahl, 264 Pa.Super. 520, 400 A.2d 207 (1979).

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

HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that: 1) the trial court improperly revoked probation for an alleged violation that occurred after expiration of the term of probation; 2) the notice he received of the alleged basis for revocation of probation did not satisfy constitutional standards; 3) his sentence is invalid because the sentencing court relied in part upon an improper consideration; and 4) trial counsel was ineffective. We remand for appointment of new counsel.

In this appeal, appellant is represented by counsel from the same public defender’s office which provided counsel for him in the probation revocation proceedings. Therefore, without deciding any of the issues raised, we remand to the trial court for appointment of new counsel, not associated with the Defender Association of Philadelphia, to represent appellant on the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and any other issue preserved for review and not finally litigated. See Commonwealth v. Patrick, 477 Pa. 284, 383 A.2d 935 (1978); Commonwealth v. Bergdahl, 264 Pa.Super. 520, 400 A.2d 207 (1979).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 A.2d 712, 273 Pa. Super. 405, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-bass-pasuperct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack