McCusker v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McCusker v. Commonwealth

402 A.2d 500, 485 Pa. 313, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 959

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 21, 1977·No. 2850 Allocatur Docket·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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.

McCusker v. Commonwealth, 402 A.2d 500, 485 Pa. 313, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 959 (Pa. 1977).

Pincite

402 A.2d 500 (McCusker v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related