Commonwealth v. Santiago
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Cercone, J„
This is an appeal from appellant’s guilty plea to the charge of robbery. 1 Appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the entering of his plea because he was not informed by counsel that intoxication could have negated an element of the offense. See Section 308 of the Crimes Code. 2 Although it does not appear on the record, appellant contends that his counsel was aware that appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense. The Commonwealth, rather than address the merits of appellant’s claim, argues, citing Commonwealth v. Starr, 450 Pa.…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. MaroneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Commonwealth v. StarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
3Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SantiagoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth v. MenoskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. HarrschSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. SantiagoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. SantiagoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.