Commonwealth v. Gray

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Gray

382 A.2d 748, 252 Pa. Super. 621

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 7, 1978

DocketAppeal, No. 1599

StatusPublished

This text of 382 A.2d 748 (Commonwealth v. Gray) 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. Gray, 382 A.2d 748, 252 Pa. Super. 621 (Pa. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of sentence vacated. The case is remanded for the entry of post-trial motions nunc pro tunc.

JACOBS and PRICE, JJ., dissent. VAN der VOORT, J., dissents and would remand to the lower court for a determination of whether appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to file post-trial motions. Commonwealth v. Tate, 464 Pa. 25, 346 A.2d 1 (1975); Commonwealth v. Schroth, 458 Pa. 233, 328 A.2d 168 (1974).

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of sentence vacated. The case is remanded for the entry of post-trial motions nunc pro tunc.

JACOBS and PRICE, JJ., dissent. VAN der VOORT, J., dissents and would remand to the lower court for a determination of whether appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to file post-trial motions. Commonwealth v. Tate, 464 Pa. 25, 346 A.2d 1 (1975); Commonwealth v. Schroth, 458 Pa. 233, 328 A.2d 168 (1974).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 A.2d 748, 252 Pa. Super. 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-gray-pasuperct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack