Commonwealth v. Burgess

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Burgess

397 A.2d 833, 263 Pa. Super. 234, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1824

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 9, 1979

DocketNo. 328

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 397 A.2d 833 (Commonwealth v. Burgess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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. Burgess, 397 A.2d 833, 263 Pa. Super. 234, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1824 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On September 19, 1977, the court below appointed Vincent A. Couchara, Esq., to represent appellant in the prosecution of his PCHA petition. After a hearing, the petition was denied. Shortly thereafter, the lower court ordered the County Controller to pay Mr. Couchara $750 for his services. On October 25, appellant filed a pro se Notice of Appeal with this Court. We now have before us appellant’s pro se brief on the merits, and the Commonwealth’s brief in opposition. Presented as it is, the issues in the case are incomprehensible; appellant is in great need of a properly counselled advocate’s brief.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel in this case has not been relieved of his duties; indeed he has already been compensated for work done at the PCHA hearing. He has not filed a petition and brief to withdraw under Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (1968). Therefore, appellant’s appointed counsel is directed either to file a withdrawal brief or to proceed with the appeal by filing an advocate’s brief on the merits. In either case, counsel is to file a new brief within thirty (30) days, or risk sanctions.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On September 19, 1977, the court below appointed Vincent A. Couchara, Esq., to represent appellant in the prosecution of his PCHA petition. After a hearing, the petition was denied. Shortly thereafter, the lower court ordered the County Controller to pay Mr. Couchara $750 for his services. On October 25, appellant filed a pro se Notice of Appeal with this Court. We now have before us appellant’s pro se brief on the merits, and the Commonwealth’s brief in opposition. Presented as it is, the issues in the case are incomprehensible; appellant is in great need of a properly counselled advocate’s brief.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel in this case has not been relieved of his duties; indeed he has already been compensated for work done at the PCHA hearing. He has not filed a petition and brief to withdraw under Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (1968). Therefore, appellant’s appointed counsel is directed either to file a withdrawal brief or to proceed with the appeal by filing an advocate’s brief on the merits. In either case, counsel is to file a new brief within thirty (30) days, or risk sanctions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 A.2d 833, 263 Pa. Super. 234, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-burgess-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack