Commonwealth v. Haywood
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Commonwealth v. BakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Commonwealth v. StancellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
- Commonwealth v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. CovingtonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- United States ex rel. Cunningham v. RundleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970