Commonwealth v. Pinhas
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
LIPEZ, Judge:
Appellant was convicted, after a jury trial, of conspiracy1 and promoting prostitution.2 Two co-defendants, although named in separate informations, were tried with appellant in *343the same proceeding. The co-defendants were convicted of prostitution.3 All three were represented by the same defense attorney. Appellant claims, on this appeal by new counsel, that his interests in the matter conflicted with those of his co-defendants and that he was, for that reason, deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We agree.
Appellant, who was the manager of the “Cavalier Health Spa,”…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Patton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- United States v. Virgil D. Dardi, Robert B. Gravis, Charles Rosenthal and Charles BermanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PinhasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. DuBoseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. PinhasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981