Commonwealth v. Patterson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Patterson

567 A.2d 690, 389 Pa. Super. 450, 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3740

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 15, 1989

DocketNo. 2478

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 567 A.2d 690 (Commonwealth v. Patterson) 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. Patterson, 567 A.2d 690, 389 Pa. Super. 450, 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3740 (Pa. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge:

On August 25, 1989, this Court filed a memorandum which granted appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw on frivolity grounds. Appellant was informed in the memorandum of his right to proceed then with the appeal “pro se, or by privately retained counsel, or not at all.” See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 495, 544 A.2d 927, 929 (1988). This Court specifically granted appellant 30 days from the date of the filing of the memorandum to file a brief. The dead-line for filing has long since past with only stoney silence from appellant.

Turner does not indicate how or when an appellant must chose between proceeding “pro se, or by privately retained counsel, or not at all.” No rule has since been promulgated. In the absence of an express rule, we consider appellant’s failure to file a brief within 30 days, as directed, to be an election of the third alternative identified in Turner.

Appeal dismissed, with prejudice.

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

KELLY, Judge:

On August 25, 1989, this Court filed a memorandum which granted appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw on frivolity grounds. Appellant was informed in the memorandum of his right to proceed then with the appeal “pro se, or by privately retained counsel, or not at all.” See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 495, 544 A.2d 927, 929 (1988). This Court specifically granted appellant 30 days from the date of the filing of the memorandum to file a brief. The dead-line for filing has long since past with only stoney silence from appellant.

Turner does not indicate how or when an appellant must chose between proceeding “pro se, or by privately retained counsel, or not at all.” No rule has since been promulgated. In the absence of an express rule, we consider appellant’s failure to file a brief within 30 days, as directed, to be an election of the third alternative identified in Turner.

Appeal dismissed, with prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 A.2d 690, 389 Pa. Super. 450, 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-patterson-pasuperct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack