Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Rosario

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 19, 1990No. 1732Published

1DissentCavanaugh, Judge

I must respectfully dissent.

I begin by noting that no brief has been filed on behalf of the appellee. Court records indicate that all efforts of the prothonotary of this court and the Commonwealth to contact appellee’s attorney of record have failed, and apparently the appellee herself is unaware of the whereabouts of her attorney. As such, I can only conclude that counsel has abandoned representation of her client.

In doing so, counsel for the appellee has failed to comply with the requirements regarding withdrawal of counsel as set forth historically in Commonwealth v. Palmer, 455 Pa. 111,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Commonwealth v. FinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Commonwealth v. TuladzieckiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Commonwealth v. DeversSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. O'Bryan v. ChandlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

5 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