Commonwealth v. Ott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Ott

294 A.2d 757, 222 Pa. Super. 399, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1299

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 19, 1972

DocketAppeal, No. 773

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.2d 757 (Commonwealth v. Ott) 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. Ott, 294 A.2d 757, 222 Pa. Super. 399, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1299 (Pa. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the lower court’s refusal of appellant’s application for post-conviction relief. Appellant claimed in his petition: (1) Denial of his constitutional right to representation by competent counsel; (2) The unconstitutional use by the state of perjured testimony; (3) The abridgement of a right guaranteed by the constitution. At the hearing the petition was amended to include the following objections: (4) The introduction into evidence of a coerced confession; (5) The introduction into evidence of a statement obtained in the absence of counsel at a time when repre[400]*400sentation is constitutionally required; (6) The infringement of the privilege against self-incrimination; (7) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence.

Our study of the case leads us to an affirmance of the lower court’s order of refusal for the reasons set forth in its able opinion in which the main contentions of appellant are fully discussed, reasoned, and properly adjudicated, together with the other issues, to be without merit.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the lower court’s refusal of appellant’s application for post-conviction relief. Appellant claimed in his petition: (1) Denial of his constitutional right to representation by competent counsel; (2) The unconstitutional use by the state of perjured testimony; (3) The abridgement of a right guaranteed by the constitution. At the hearing the petition was amended to include the following objections: (4) The introduction into evidence of a coerced confession; (5) The introduction into evidence of a statement obtained in the absence of counsel at a time when repre[400]*400sentation is constitutionally required; (6) The infringement of the privilege against self-incrimination; (7) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence.

Our study of the case leads us to an affirmance of the lower court’s order of refusal for the reasons set forth in its able opinion in which the main contentions of appellant are fully discussed, reasoned, and properly adjudicated, together with the other issues, to be without merit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.2d 757, 222 Pa. Super. 399, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-ott-pa-1972.