Commonwealth v. Trowery
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
Per Curiam,
Petitioner was convicted of robbery and he appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed. A petition for allocatur followed. The petition was prepared by petitioner; counsel has merely furnished a backer and a typist. This is clearly not the “representation in the role of an advocate” which we require. Commonwealth v. Stancell, 435 Pa. 301, 256 A. 2d 798 (1969).
The record is remanded to the hearing court so that counsel can file a proper petition for allocatur.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. StancellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Hall v. DorseyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. HoernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
- Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977