Commonwealth v. Hewlett

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Hewlett

249 A.2d 815, 214 Pa. Super. 718, 1969 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1501

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 7, 1969

DocketAppeal, No. 773

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.2d 815 (Commonwealth v. Hewlett) 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. Hewlett, 249 A.2d 815, 214 Pa. Super. 718, 1969 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1501 (Pa. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

Opinion

In accordance with Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), and Commonwealth ex rel. Newsome v. Myers, 422 Pa. 240 (1966), the order is vacated and the record remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing, with counsel, to determine whether appellant was deprived of his right to appeal, including the filing of post-trial motions, and his right to counsel on appeal. If the lower court shall find that appellant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to file post-trial motions, it shall enter an order to that effect, thereby precluding appellant’s right to further prosecute an appeal. If the lower court finds that appellant has not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, it shall permit the filing of post-trial motions, with counsel, nunc pro tunc. If such motions are denied, this Court will permit, upon motion of counsel, an appeal to be docketed as if timely filed and thereafter orally argued. See Commonwealth ex rel. Robinson v. Myers, 427 Pa. 104 (1967); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 430 Pa. 1 (1968); Commonwealth v. Ezell, 431 Pa. 101 (1968).

Wright, P. J., would affirm the order of the court below.

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

Per Curiam :

Opinion

In accordance with Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), and Commonwealth ex rel. Newsome v. Myers, 422 Pa. 240 (1966), the order is vacated and the record remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing, with counsel, to determine whether appellant was deprived of his right to appeal, including the filing of post-trial motions, and his right to counsel on appeal. If the lower court shall find that appellant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to file post-trial motions, it shall enter an order to that effect, thereby precluding appellant’s right to further prosecute an appeal. If the lower court finds that appellant has not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, it shall permit the filing of post-trial motions, with counsel, nunc pro tunc. If such motions are denied, this Court will permit, upon motion of counsel, an appeal to be docketed as if timely filed and thereafter orally argued. See Commonwealth ex rel. Robinson v. Myers, 427 Pa. 104 (1967); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 430 Pa. 1 (1968); Commonwealth v. Ezell, 431 Pa. 101 (1968).

Wright, P. J., would affirm the order of the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.2d 815, 214 Pa. Super. 718, 1969 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-hewlett-pasuperct-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack