Commonwealth v. Worthy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
POPOVICH, Judge:
This appeal is concerned solely with the issue of whether appointed counsel should be permitted to withdraw from the case. We conclude that counsel has not satisfied the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (1968), and, therefore, we deny counsel’s request to withdraw.
In his brief to us, counsel for appellant argues that “Earl Worthy’s Appeal has no merit[1] either in fact or law, and his rights have not been violated, neither in his initial Trial and *48Appeal stage, nor in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Commonwealth v. McClendonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. BakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Commonwealth v. GreerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Commonwealth v. LiskaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. FordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Commonwealth v. McGethSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. FischettiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. GreenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.