Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Haywood

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 27, 1970No. 3132-A. Miscellaneous DocketPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for allocatur in which he seeks review of the order of the Superior Court affirming denial of his claimed PCHA rights. The petition cites no reasons in support of this request for allocatur. Petitioner’s appointed counsel has filed a “supplementary petition for allocatur” in which he seeks the allowance of an appeal for “those reasons and grounds set out by the appellant in his petition for allowance of an appeal.” Such a petition utterly fails to comport with our requirement of “representation in the role of an advocate.” Commonwealth v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Commonwealth v. StancellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  3. Commonwealth v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  2. Commonwealth v. CovingtonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. United States ex rel. Cunningham v. RundleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API