Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 31, 1980No. Appeal No. 210Published

1DissentRoberts, Justice

I dissent from the summary affirmance of an order of the Commonwealth Court denying pro se appellant Roy Brown’s petition for review of a Board of Probation and Parole’s recomputation of sentence. The matter should first be remanded for a determination of whether there has been an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right” to counsel. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Commonwealth v. Cooney, 439 Pa. 324, 266 A.2d 650 (1970) (record remanded for determination whether pro se PCHA appellant knowingly waived right to counsel);…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Bronson v. Commonwealth Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Commonwealth v. CooneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API