Commonwealth v. Mazewski

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mazewski

240 A.2d 573, 212 Pa. Super. 713, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1203

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 15, 1968

DocketAppeal, No. 240

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.2d 573 (Commonwealth v. Mazewski) 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. Mazewski, 240 A.2d 573, 212 Pa. Super. 713, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1203 (Pa. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In accordance with Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), Commonwealth ex rel. Cunningham v. Maroney, 421 Pa. 157, 218 A. 2d 811 (1966), and Commonwealth v. Grillo, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 222 A. 2d 427 (1966), the record is remanded to the court below with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to file post-trial motions and his right to counsel on appeal. If the court finds that his right to file post-trial motions has not been waived, appellant shall be permitted to file post-trial motions nunc pro tunc. If such motions are then denied, appellant then shall be permitted to appeal nunc pro tunc, if such right has not been [714]*714waived. Counsel shall be appointed to represent appellant in these proceedings.

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

Per Curiam:

In accordance with Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), Commonwealth ex rel. Cunningham v. Maroney, 421 Pa. 157, 218 A. 2d 811 (1966), and Commonwealth v. Grillo, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 222 A. 2d 427 (1966), the record is remanded to the court below with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to file post-trial motions and his right to counsel on appeal. If the court finds that his right to file post-trial motions has not been waived, appellant shall be permitted to file post-trial motions nunc pro tunc. If such motions are then denied, appellant then shall be permitted to appeal nunc pro tunc, if such right has not been [714]*714waived. Counsel shall be appointed to represent appellant in these proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.2d 573, 212 Pa. Super. 713, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mazewski-pasuperct-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack