Commonwealth v. Poole

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Poole

456 A.2d 1363, 500 Pa. 426, 1983 Pa. LEXIS 485

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 16, 1983

DocketNo. 80-3-431

StatusPublished

This text of 456 A.2d 1363 (Commonwealth v. Poole) 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. Poole, 456 A.2d 1363, 500 Pa. 426, 1983 Pa. LEXIS 485 (Pa. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal from Philadelphia Common Pleas’ judgment of sentence of five to ten years imprisonment on appellant’s conviction by a jury of third degree murder. Sentence was suspended on the conviction for possession of an instrument of crime. Four issues are raised: (1) ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failing to have a psychiatrist examine appellant to determine the appropriateness of an insanity defense; (2) ineffectiveness of trial counsel for comparing appellant to an old watch during his closing argument; (3) lack of a knowing and intelligent waiver of appellant’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 rights; and (4) ineffectiveness [428]*428of trial counsel for failing to advise appellant of his right to a non-jury trial. We have reviewed the record in this case and find appellant’s contentions to be without merit.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal from Philadelphia Common Pleas’ judgment of sentence of five to ten years imprisonment on appellant’s conviction by a jury of third degree murder. Sentence was suspended on the conviction for possession of an instrument of crime. Four issues are raised: (1) ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failing to have a psychiatrist examine appellant to determine the appropriateness of an insanity defense; (2) ineffectiveness of trial counsel for comparing appellant to an old watch during his closing argument; (3) lack of a knowing and intelligent waiver of appellant’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 rights; and (4) ineffectiveness [428]*428of trial counsel for failing to advise appellant of his right to a non-jury trial. We have reviewed the record in this case and find appellant’s contentions to be without merit.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 A.2d 1363, 500 Pa. 426, 1983 Pa. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-poole-pa-1983.