Commonwealth v. Rozplochi
Pennsylvania Superior Court
385 Pa. Super. 357 (1989)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Barbara Cavaliere and Elizabeth DeJesse were working inside the office of a financial-services business, which was located inside a grocery store. Cavaliere heard a knock on the door and saw Albino Rozplochi (defendant) through a window next to the door. Cavaliere asked Rozplochi to state his business through the door. Rozplochi said he had a package for her and held up an identification card and a manila envelope. Cavaliere began to open the door to admit him but became suspicious. As she attempted to close the door, she saw that Rozplochi had a gun. Cavaliere and DeJesse attempted to push the door closed but Rozplochi forced his way in, while brandishing the gun and threatening to “blow them away.” Once inside the office, Rozplochi pointed the gun at both women and threatened to kill them. Rozplochi forced Cavaliere to turn over approximately $22,000 in cash and food stamps from the office safe. Rozplochi then fled and was later arrested and charged with numerous crimes including two counts of robbery, one against Cavaliere and one against DeJesse. Rozplochi was convicted on both counts of robbery. Rozplochi appealed on the basis of ineffective counsel, alleging that his counsel failed to assert that one theft from a single place of business could not support two charges of robbery.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beck, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

