We held,Į will accept for filing pro se appellate briefs, but we will not review a pro se brief if a counseled brief has been filed, either before, simultaneously with, or after the pro se, due to the judicial confusion and delay that ensues. Where an appellant is represented by counsel, this Court has refused to entertain pro se briefs because of the administrative burdens and the likelihood for procedural delay and confusion. We will consider both the original appellate brief and the pro se briefs since this is not a case of hybrid appellate representation. We now have before us on appellant's behalf: the original appellate brief filed May 7, 1988, which is incorporated by reference into the pro se briefs one pro se brief dated Decemanother pro se brief dated Januand a pro se reply brief dated February 24, 1992. On February 10, 1992, such motion was granted. In addition to seeking reinstatement of his appeal, appellant also moved to reinstate the original appellate brief filed by Attorney Steinberg. Finally, on October 30, 1991, this Court entered a per curiam order reinstating appellant's original appeal. The Commonwealth successfully moved to dismiss appellant's PCRA petition and this Court affirmed the dismissal of appellant's PCRA petition by memorandum decision, No. Appellant next filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCRA). Then, on December 8, 1989, appellant filed a pro se motion for reversal of convictions which was also denied. *259 On April 5, 1989, appellant filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which was denied. When appellant did not advise the Court of the name of his new counsel nor indicated he was proceeding pro se, we dismissed the case by per curiam order of February 15, 1989, for failure to file a brief. Steinberg's motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant. Thereafter, on August 28, 1988, this Court granted Marc R. Appellant's counsel then filed a brief with this Court on May 6, 1988. In response to appellant's motion for a new trial and brief in support of such motion, the trial court filed an opinion on March 18, 1988. The docket entries indicate that appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 31, 1987. Appellant then received the following sentence on December 8, 1987: a two-year term of probation and a $1,000 fine on the charge of criminal trespass and a concurrent one-year term of probation on the charge of disorderly conduct. On November 12, 1987, post-trial motions were denied with respect to criminal trespass and disorderly conduct, but granted with respect to resisting arrest. Subsequent to a jury trial, appellant was convicted of one count of criminal trespass, two counts of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered on December 8, 1987, by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. TAXES ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING APPEALED & ARE ESTIMATED TO BE REDUCED TO $8000 +/- year SELLER WILL CREDIT BUYER $4000 TOWARDS TAXES FOR THIS YEAR'S DIFFERENCE.Mary M. Rounding out the 2nd floor are 2 additional bedrooms & 1 full bath. Adjacent to Master Suite is a junior suite consisting of a bedroom w/full bath. Upstairs features large Master Suite w/sitting area, 2 walk-in closets & great master bath. A 1st floor study is tucked off of the great room. Also on 1st floor are generously sized LR & DR complete w/wainscoting & crown molding. Morning room feat many windows for light w/views of the Carlton pool, hot tub, stamped concrete surround & Trex deck. Spectacular kitchen feat granite countertops, tile backsplash & Whirlpool Gold appliances. Bradford Grand model featuring spectacular front entry w/turned staircase, vaulted ceiling, balcony & overlook as well as hardwood flooring. One of the most impressive homes being offered in popular Candlewyck backing to open space.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |