Cargando…
Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Superior Court of Pennsylvania; 295 Pa. Super. 154; 441 A.2d 395. Datos: https://static.case.law/pa-super/295/cases/0154-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
Commonwealth v. Beck, 295 Pa. Super. 154 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982) JOHNSON, Judge: Appellants were arrested on charges of harassment, a summary offense, and the district justice imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) on each Appellant. Appellants, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 67(a), 42 Pa.C.S.A. (1981 Pamph.), appealed to the court of common pleas. After a two-day nonjury trial, the judge found Appellants guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment for a period of thirty (30) days in the county prison. Appellants were escorted to the county prison; but, after a brief time, they were recalled to appear again before the trial judge. At this time, the judge vacated the sentence to allow Appellants ten (10) days to file post-trial motions, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 1123(a), 42 Pa.C.S.A. (1981 Pamph.). On January 9, 1981, the judge dismissed the post-trial motions and again sentenced Appellants to imprisonment for thirty (30) days. In the same order, the judge denied bail without explaining the basis for denial of bail, as Rule 4010(C) requires. On January 14, 1980, the trial judge granted Carl Beck’s Application for Work Release. On the same date, the Superior Court, PRICE, J., granted Appellants’ Application for Release Pending Appeal because the trial judge had failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 4010(C). The instant appeals are from the judgment of sentence of January 9, 1980. For the following reasons, we affirm the finding of guilt, vacate the…
Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Superior Court of Pennsylvania; 295 Pa. Super. 154; 441 A.2d 395. Datos: https://static.case.law/pa-super/295/cases/0154-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
Commonwealth v. Beck, 295 Pa. Super. 154 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982) JOHNSON, Judge: Appellants were arrested on charges of harassment, a summary offense, and the district justice imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) on each Appellant. Appellants, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 67(a), 42 Pa.C.S.A. (1981 Pamph.), appealed to the court of common pleas. After a two-day nonjury trial, the judge found Appellants guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment for a period of thirty (30) days in the county prison. Appellants were escorted to the county prison; but, after a brief time, they were recalled to appear again before the trial judge. At this time, the judge vacated the sentence to allow Appellants ten (10) days to file post-trial motions, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 1123(a), 42 Pa.C.S.A. (1981 Pamph.). On January 9, 1981, the judge dismissed the post-trial motions and again sentenced Appellants to imprisonment for thirty (30) days. In the same order, the judge denied bail without explaining the basis for denial of bail, as Rule 4010(C) requires. On January 14, 1980, the trial judge granted Carl Beck’s Application for Work Release. On the same date, the Superior Court, PRICE, J., granted Appellants’ Application for Release Pending Appeal because the trial judge had failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 4010(C). The instant appeals are from the judgment of sentence of January 9, 1980. For the following reasons, we affirm the finding of guilt, vacate the…