Commonwealth v. Batista

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Batista

840 A.2d 988, 576 Pa. 611, 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2160

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 19, 2003

DocketAppeal, No. 356 MAL 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 840 A.2d 988 (Commonwealth v. Batista) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Batista, 840 A.2d 988, 576 Pa. 611, 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2160 (Pa. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[612]*612 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2003, the petition for allowance of appeal is granted limited to the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective in allowing the jury to be selected in Petitioner’s absence. The case is remanded to the PCRA court with direction to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective in allowing the jury to be selected in Petitioner’s absence.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[612]*612 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2003, the petition for allowance of appeal is granted limited to the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective in allowing the jury to be selected in Petitioner’s absence. The case is remanded to the PCRA court with direction to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective in allowing the jury to be selected in Petitioner’s absence.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 A.2d 988, 576 Pa. 611, 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-batista-pa-2003.