mandate rule in Pennsylvania

1978While Ingram has been held not to have changed the requirement as to the content of the colloquy, Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976), it unquestionably stressed the mandate of the rule that there be an on-the-record colloquy : `We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, supra, at 204-205 , 316 A.2d at 81 : "Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review." Failure to satisfy these minimal requirem

1978While Ingram has been held not to have changed the requirement as to the content of the colloquy, Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976), it unquestionably stressed the mandate of the rule that there be an on-the-record colloquy : `We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, supra, at 204-205 , 316 A.2d at 81 : "Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review." Failure to satisfy these minimal requirem

1978While Ingram has been held not to have changed the requirement as to the content of the colloquy, Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976), it unquestionably stressed the mandate of the rule that there be an on-the-record colloquy : `We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, supra, at 204-205 , 316 A.2d at 81 : "Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review." Failure to satisfy these minimal requirem

1978While Ingram has been held not to have changed the requirement as to the content of the colloquy, Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976), it unquestionably stressed the mandate of the rule that there be an on-the-record colloquy : `We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, supra, at 204-205 , 316 A.2d at 81 : "Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review." Failure to satisfy these minimal requirem

1978While Ingram has been held not to have changed the requirement as to the content of the colloquy, Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976), it unquestionably stressed the mandate of the rule that there be an on-the-record colloquy: ‘We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, supra, at 204-205 , 316 A.2d at 81 : “Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review.” Failure to satisfy these minimal requireme

1978While Ingram has been held not to have changed the requirement as to the content of the colloquy, Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976), it unquestionably stressed the mandate of the rule that there be an on-the-record colloquy : `We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, supra, at 204-205 , 316 A.2d at 81 : "Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review." Failure to satisfy these minimal requirem

2014More specifically, where doubt exists concerning the proper scope of a penal statute, it is the accused Id.

2006The rule was intended to ensure accountability, not observation of each step of the process by which a disbarred or suspended attorney performs legal research and/or drafts memoranda." Maj., ___ Pa. at ___, 899 A.2d at 1115 .

1997Citing to Mumich , the Weitkamp court set out a “principal factors” test in deciding which complaint was the starting point for the Rule 1100 period: “(1) the failure of the defendant or his attorney to object to the dismissal of the complaint because of the defect was interpreted as an acquiescence in the procedure followed by the magistrate; and (2) the record did not reflect any deliberate attempt by the district attorney’s office to avoid the mandate of the rule.” Id. at 342 , 386 A.2d at 1033 .

1997As in Cartagena, supra, ‘the second complaint . . . was the one which commenced this prosecution,’ 482 Pa. at 19 , 343 A.2d at 357, and there is no evidence of a prosecutorial plan to avoid the mandate or the rule.” Id. at 70-71, 425 A.2d at 370 .

1997As in Cartagena, supra, ‘the second complaint . . . was the one which commenced this prosecution,’ 482 Pa. at 19 , 343 A.2d at 357, and there is no evidence of a prosecutorial plan to avoid the mandate or the rule.” Id. at 70-71, 425 A.2d at 370 .

1997Citing to Mumich , the Weitkamp court set out a “principal factors” test in deciding which complaint was the starting point for the Rule 1100 period: “(1) the failure of the defendant or his attorney to object to the dismissal of the complaint because of the defect was interpreted as an acquiescence in the procedure followed by the magistrate; and (2) the record did not reflect any deliberate attempt by the district attorney’s office to avoid the mandate of the rule.” Id. at 342 , 386 A.2d at 1033 .

1995Pa.R.C.P. 233, which is incorporated in section 8104 by language requiring ‘written notice in the matter prescribed by general rules . . . ,’ states that: “ ‘(a) All legal papers, . . . including notices . . . shall be served by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to him at the address of the party or his attorney of record endorsed on an appearance on prior pleading of the party____’ Clearly, petitioners’ letter of September 19, 1978 satisfies the mandate of this rule.” First National Consumer Discount Co. v. Fetherman, 43 D.&C.3d 9, 18 (1983), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 338 Pa.

1995Pa.R.C.P. 233, which is incorporated in section 8104 by language requiring ‘written notice in the matter prescribed by general rules . . . ,’ states that: “ ‘(a) All legal papers, . . . including notices . . . shall be served by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to him at the address of the party or his attorney of record endorsed on an appearance on prior pleading of the party____’ Clearly, petitioners’ letter of September 19, 1978 satisfies the mandate of this rule.” First National Consumer Discount Co. v. Fetherman, 43 D.&C.3d 9, 18 (1983), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 338 Pa.

1995Pa.R.C.P. 233, which is incorporated in section 8104 by language requiring ‘written notice in the matter prescribed by general rules . . . ,’ states that: “ ‘(a) All legal papers, . . . including notices . . . shall be served by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to him at the address of the party or his attorney of record endorsed on an appearance on prior pleading of the party____’ Clearly, petitioners’ letter of September 19, 1978 satisfies the mandate of this rule.” First National Consumer Discount Co. v. Fetherman, 43 D.&C.3d 9, 18 (1983), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 338 Pa.

1995Pa.R.C.P. 233, which is incorporated in section 8104 by language requiring ‘written notice in the matter prescribed by general rules . . . ,’ states that: “ ‘(a) All legal papers, . . . including notices . . . shall be served by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to him at the address of the party or his attorney of record endorsed on an appearance on prior pleading of the party____’ Clearly, petitioners’ letter of September 19, 1978 satisfies the mandate of this rule.” First National Consumer Discount Co. v. Fetherman, 43 D.&C.3d 9, 18 (1983), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 338 Pa.

1972On the other hand, the mandate of the rule is recognized by the Superior Court in Tate v. Connor, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 427 , and in General Mills, Inc. v. Snavely, 203 Pa. Superior Ct. 162 .

1972On the other hand, the mandate of the rule is recognized by the Superior Court in Tate v. Connor, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 427 , and in General Mills, Inc. v. Snavely, 203 Pa. Superior Ct. 162 .

1958It is clear that the matter of dispute is one of fact and it is not alleged that they did not have full opportunity to present their defenses: Commonwealth v. Freedman, supra. We can readily dispose of the other allegations by referring to the mandate of our rule 6 (6) (2) which provides that in cases other than summary conviction, the petition must, show that the said defense was presented or offered at a hearing before the subordinate court.