Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Battle

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 2005PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECK, J.:

¶ 1 The issue presented is the procedure to which appellate counsel must adhere when an appellant claiming ineffectiveness of appellate counsel files pro se a petition for remand for the appointment of new counsel. We remand for counsel to provide the necessary analysis to this Court for review.

¶ 2 On October 4, 2001, appellant was convicted by jury of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. 1 He was sentenced to five to ten years imprisonment. His direct appeal to the Superior Court resulted in an affirmation of judgment of sentence. Appellant then filed pro se a petition…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Commonwealth v. FinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Commonwealth v. GrazierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Commonwealth v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Commonwealth v. RogersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. JetteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Commonwealth v. DevineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Commonwealth v. MinerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Eric Norris v. Marilyn BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
  5. Commonwealth v. BattleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API