Commonwealth v. Bradley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Bradley

369 A.2d 1155, 470 Pa. 602, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 558

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 28, 1977

Docket470

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 369 A.2d 1155 (Commonwealth v. Bradley) 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. Bradley, 369 A.2d 1155, 470 Pa. 602, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 558 (Pa. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a pro se petition filed under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. The trial court concluded that the reasons for relief cited in the petition were frivolous and without support in the record, and dismissed the petition without the appointment of counsel or conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Under the provisions of Rule 1503(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure (adopted January 24, 1968 and effective August 1, 1968) which superseded Section 12 of the Act of 1966, 19 P.S. § 1180-12, supra, the trial court may not summarily dismiss a petition filed by an indigent under the Act of 1966, without the appointment of counsel, if counsel is requested, unless the same issues have been previously adjudicated adversely to the petitioner in a counseled proceeding or one wherein he has knowingly waived his right to the assistance of counsel. See Commonwealth v. Blair, 470 Pa.-, 369 A.2d 1153 (1977) and Commonwealth v. Adams, 465 Pa. 389, 350 A.2d 820 (1976).

Hence, the order appealed from is vacated and the record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a pro se petition filed under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. The trial court concluded that the reasons for relief cited in the petition were frivolous and without support in the record, and dismissed the petition without the appointment of counsel or conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Under the provisions of Rule 1503(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure (adopted January 24, 1968 and effective August 1, 1968) which superseded Section 12 of the Act of 1966, 19 P.S. § 1180-12, supra, the trial court may not summarily dismiss a petition filed by an indigent under the Act of 1966, without the appointment of counsel, if counsel is requested, unless the same issues have been previously adjudicated adversely to the petitioner in a counseled proceeding or one wherein he has knowingly waived his right to the assistance of counsel. See Commonwealth v. Blair, 470 Pa.-, 369 A.2d 1153 (1977) and Commonwealth v. Adams, 465 Pa. 389, 350 A.2d 820 (1976).

Hence, the order appealed from is vacated and the record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 A.2d 1155, 470 Pa. 602, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-bradley-pa-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack