Showing posts with label extraordinary relief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extraordinary relief. Show all posts

Thursday, July 9, 2009

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KAZIMIR CRAIG GROHOWSKI

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KAZIMIR CRAIG GROHOWSKI
No. 1635 and 1721 MDA 2007 2009 PA Super 128 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/9/2009

Appeal from the Order Dated August 23, 2007
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County
Criminal at No(s): CP-49-CR-0000706-2004
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
This is an appeal from the order dated August 23, 2007, and entered on August 24, 2007, by the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County, following the granting of Appellee’s/cross-Appellant’s, Kazimir Grohowski’s, motion for extraordinary relief and awarding of a new trial. Herein, the Commonwealth contends that the motion for extraordinary relief was improperly granted in that (1) such a motion is improper to raise allegations of ineffectiveness of counsel, and (2) even if not improper, trial counsel was not ineffective where Appellee did not prove he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument. We reverse and remand.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DESMOND SCOTT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DESMOND SCOTT
No. 912 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 34 Atlantic: 967 A.2d 995 Filed: 2/25/2009

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 12, 2007
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0609801-2006
Before: BENDER, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Desmond Scott appeals the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of Escape, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5121, in connection with his failure to return to a Community Correction Center. Scott contends that the evidence adduced at trial was not legally sufficient to sustain his conviction as he was on parole at the time of the events charged and that the record fails to establish otherwise. Upon review, we find no merit in Scott’s assertion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here