History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Veltre
380 A.2d 356
Pa.
1977
Check Treatment

*1 in & Sons Wiley was said with what agree . . We “. 909, 918, 543, 557, 84 S.Ct. 376 U.S. Livingston, (1964): L.Ed.2d “ parties . . . it is determined ‘Once of a dispute matter subject submit the to obligated are out of grow which arbitration, questions “procedural” to should be its final disposition and bear on the dispute ” the arbitrator.’ left to Kardon, can find no limitation case, we instant as In the prohibit which would agreement bargaining in the collective the final As issues. deciding procedural from an arbitrator left to the to be issue is of the procedural determination erred Court that Commonwealth arbitrator, we believe the arbitrator. reversing and arbitrator’s is reversed Court of Commonwealth

Order award reinstated. or deci- in the consideration no

CACEN, part took this case. sion of

380 A.2d 356 Appellant, Pennsylvania, of cases). (two VELTRE John Sept. 1977. *2 Conte, James J. Asst. Dist. Atty., Greensburg, for appel- lant. Redlich, Redlich,

Leonard A. Cassol, Morocco, Redlich & Greensburg, for appellee. EAGEN, O’BRIEN,

Before and ROBERTS, POM- EROY, NIX, PACKEL, MANDERINO and JJ.

OPINION PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed. The post-conviction hearing judge, who also had at presided the acceptance of the guilty pleas, new properly granted a trial. Minor, Commonwealth v. 467 Pa. 356 (1976). A.2d 346 POMEROY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

EAGEN, J.,C. dissents.

POMEROY, Justice, dissenting.

By its affirmance of the order of the P.C.H.A. court a trial, new granting the Court necessarily applies the standards for ascertaining the of a validity guilty plea, first established in Commonwealth 455 Pa. Ingram, 316 A.2d 77 (1974),to a case wherein the was accepted plea prior to the date of our For Ingram. decision the reasons fully set forth my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. I Ingram believe (1976), A.2d 346 Minor, Pa. fashion. My wholly prospective in a applied be should no doubt at bar leaves in the case of the record examination (to involved here colloquies plea guilty mind that in my battery assault and and aggravated rape, murder generally, pre-Ingram require- satisfied the kill) fully with intent to and knowing, intelligent were ments, the pleas and that allowing for find no justification I therefore voluntary. the cases be ordering and of the pleas withdrawal this retried. Hence dissent. A.2d 357 Pennsylvania FAUNTROY, Appellant.

Clifton *3 29, 1976. March

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Veltre
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Dec 1, 1977
Citation: 380 A.2d 356
Docket Number: 88 and 100
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.