McCusker v. Commonwealth
This text of 402 A.2d 500 (McCusker v. Commonwealth) 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.
Opinion
ORDER
The record in the instant case reveals that appellant, Daniel J. McCusker, was not informed of his right to file post-verdict motions following the acceptance of his plea of nolo-contendere.
Therefore, judgment of the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for the filing of post-verdict motions nunc pro tunc. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a), (b) and (c); Commonwealth v. Tate, 464 Pa. 25, 346 A.2d 1 (1975). Following disposition of said motions by the trial court, either side shall be entitled to file a new appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
402 A.2d 500, 485 Pa. 313, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccusker-v-commonwealth-pa-1977.