Commonwealth v. Hull

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Hull

243 A.2d 135, 212 Pa. Super. 476, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1154

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 13, 1968

DocketAppeal, No. 29

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.2d 135 (Commonwealth v. Hull) 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. Hull, 243 A.2d 135, 212 Pa. Super. 476, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1154 (Pa. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Hannum, J.,

The record shows that the appellant filed a post-conviction hearing petition raising eight questions, which the court below dismissed without a hearing for the reason that: “This petition raises no issues that were not considered in prior petitions.” However, it appears that one of the reasons alleged by the appellant was that he was denied counsel to represent him at his post-conviction hearing. This would bring his case within the ruling of the Supreme Court in Com. v. Hoffman (No. 1), 426 Pa. 226, 232 A. 2d 623.

Accordingly the order of the court below is vacated and the record is remanded to the court below with instructions to appoint counsel to represent appellant in a post-conviction proceeding at which his eligibility for an evidentiary hearing and/or other relief may be determined.

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

Opinion by

Hannum, J.,

The record shows that the appellant filed a post-conviction hearing petition raising eight questions, which the court below dismissed without a hearing for the reason that: “This petition raises no issues that were not considered in prior petitions.” However, it appears that one of the reasons alleged by the appellant was that he was denied counsel to represent him at his post-conviction hearing. This would bring his case within the ruling of the Supreme Court in Com. v. Hoffman (No. 1), 426 Pa. 226, 232 A. 2d 623.

Accordingly the order of the court below is vacated and the record is remanded to the court below with instructions to appoint counsel to represent appellant in a post-conviction proceeding at which his eligibility for an evidentiary hearing and/or other relief may be determined.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.2d 135, 212 Pa. Super. 476, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-hull-pasuperct-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack