Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 26, 1969PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed without hearing. On appeal, the Superior Court remanded the matter for the appointment of *336counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. Counsel was appointed, the hearing was held, and relief was denied. The Superior Court affirmed, and we are now faced with petitioner’s pro se petition for allocatur. In Commonwealth v. Hickox, 438 Pa. 144, 249 A. 2d 777 (1969) in response to a pro se petition for allocatur, we directed that counsel appointed for petitioner proceed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 318(c) of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Hellertown Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Commonwealth v. HickoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CooneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Commonwealth v. HaywoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Goodrow v. Elk County Court of Common Pleas RidgwayDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Commonwealth v. HoernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API