Commonwealth v. Mack

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mack

825 A.2d 629

DecidedJune 5, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 825 A.2d 629 (Commonwealth v. Mack) 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. Mack, 825 A.2d 629 (Pa. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM. _

AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2003, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED in part, but LIMITED to the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence found in the second search of Michelle Wilkinson’s vehicle and in failing to object to that evidence being introduced into evidence. See “Statement Pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of Appellate Procedure,” p. 3, para. 2a. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration and determination of this is[630]*630sue. In all other respects, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM. _

AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2003, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED in part, but LIMITED to the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence found in the second search of Michelle Wilkinson’s vehicle and in failing to object to that evidence being introduced into evidence. See “Statement Pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of Appellate Procedure,” p. 3, para. 2a. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration and determination of this is[630]*630sue. In all other respects, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

825 A.2d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mack-pa-2003.