Commonwealth v. Finley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, Judge
In light of our Supreme Court’s unequivocal statement that “the procedures followed in the Finley case accorded the PCHA petitioner all the protection incorporated into the right to appointed counsel in collateral proceedings under the PCHA,” our disposition of this appeal is a foregone conclusion. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 495, 544 A.2d 927, 928 (1988).
I nonetheless dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which suggests that counsel seeking to withdraw in future PCHA appeals will be required to explain why petitioner’s issues were meritless. It is true that neither *401fe…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TurnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Commonwealth v. McClendonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. GreenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.