Commonwealth v. Rash, C., Pet

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 30, 2016·No. 95 WM 2016·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 95 WM 2016 : Respondent : : : v. : : : CHRISTIAN RASH, : : Petitioner :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2016, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are DISMISSED. See

Commonwealth v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (explaining that hybrid representation

is not permitted).

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of record.

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

Commonwealth v. Rash, C., Pet, (Pa. 2016).

Commonwealth v. Rash, C., Pet (Commonwealth v. Rash, C., Pet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Reid
642 A.2d 453 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)