Commonwealth v. Battle
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Commonwealth v. FinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Commonwealth v. GrazierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Commonwealth v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Commonwealth v. RogersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Commonwealth v. JetteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. DevineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. MinerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Eric Norris v. Marilyn BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Commonwealth v. BattleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.