Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. GOLSON (05/18/72)

decided: May 18, 1972.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
GOLSON, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, June T., 1968, Nos. 462 and 494, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Alfonso Golson.

COUNSEL

Arthur J. King, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Stewart J. Greenleaf, Assistant District Attorney, William T. Nicholas, First Assistant District Attorney, and Milton O. Moss, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Spaulding, J. Hoffman, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 222 Pa. Super. Page 46]

Order affirmed.

Disposition

Order affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Spaulding, J.:

I respectfully dissent.

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant's Post Conviction Hearing Act petition by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. Appellant contends that his sentence to consecutive, rather than concurrent prison terms was invalid and that a change in his sentence after he had started serving it subjected him to double jeopardy. A hearing on the petition was held on October 18, 1971, and the petition was subsequently dismissed. This appeal followed.

Appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel on this appeal under the rules promulgated in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing denied, 388 U.S. 924 (1967); and Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (1968).*fn1 As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated in Baker, at 211: " Anders emphasizes, throughout the Court's opinion, that the brief must be that of an advocate not amicus curiae ". (Emphasis in original.) Here, while counsel has explored appellant's claims in some detail, he states, in a section of his brief entitled "Attorney's Notation": "Under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.