McCusker v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per 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.
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. TateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
4Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth v. ArndtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. PhillipsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. HeemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.