Commonwealth v. Duncan

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Duncan

437 A.2d 956, 496 Pa. 444, 1981 Pa. LEXIS 1106

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 17, 1981

DocketNo. 80-3-397

StatusPublished

This text of 437 A.2d 956 (Commonwealth v. Duncan) 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 v. Duncan, 437 A.2d 956, 496 Pa. 444, 1981 Pa. LEXIS 1106 (Pa. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of third degree murder on February 24, 1975 after trial by jury. Judgment of sentence was affirmed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 473 Pa. 62, 373 A.2d 1051 (1975). Subsequently, appellant filed a PCHA petition, which was denied, and that denial is presently before us on appeal. Appellant was represented in this proceeding by his third lawyer. Three allegations of ineffectiveness of counsel are raised in this appeal: (1) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview witnesses to the crime; (2) that PCHA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issues concerning the prosecution’s opening speech; (3) that trial counsel was ineffective in making certain remarks in his opening speech, and PCHA counsel was ineffective in failing to raise these remarks as a ground for relief in the PCHA petition. We have carefully reviewed the record and find these claims to be without merit. Denial of the PCHA petition is affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of third degree murder on February 24, 1975 after trial by jury. Judgment of sentence was affirmed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 473 Pa. 62, 373 A.2d 1051 (1975). Subsequently, appellant filed a PCHA petition, which was denied, and that denial is presently before us on appeal. Appellant was represented in this proceeding by his third lawyer. Three allegations of ineffectiveness of counsel are raised in this appeal: (1) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview witnesses to the crime; (2) that PCHA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issues concerning the prosecution’s opening speech; (3) that trial counsel was ineffective in making certain remarks in his opening speech, and PCHA counsel was ineffective in failing to raise these remarks as a ground for relief in the PCHA petition. We have carefully reviewed the record and find these claims to be without merit. Denial of the PCHA petition is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 A.2d 956, 496 Pa. 444, 1981 Pa. LEXIS 1106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-duncan-pa-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack