Legal Opinion

McCusker v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 21, 1977No. 2850 Allocatur DocketPublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. Commonwealth v. TateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

4Cited by10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth v. ArndtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Commonwealth v. PhillipsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Commonwealth v. HeemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API