Commonwealth v. Mazewski

240 A.2d 573, 212 Pa. Super. 713, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1203
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 15, 1968·No. Appeal, No. 240·Published

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

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

240 A.2d 573 (Commonwealth v. Mazewski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Douglas v. California
372 U.S. 353 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Cunningham v. Maroney
218 A.2d 811 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Commonwealth v. Grillo
222 A.2d 427 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)