Commonwealth v. Rose

64 A.3d 1072

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Rose. Read the opinion of the Court — 623 Pa. 241 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 20, 2013·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that the PCRA court’s failure to provide notice pursuant to Pa. R.Crim.P. 907 was permissible in this case.

The Motion for Leave to File a Reply to the Answer is DENIED. It is further ordered that the trial court is directed to appoint counsel to assist Petitioner on appeal to this Court.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that the PCRA court’s failure to provide notice pursuant to Pa. R.Crim.P. 907 was permissible in this case.

The Motion for Leave to File a Reply to the Answer is DENIED. It is further ordered that the trial court is directed to appoint counsel to assist Petitioner on appeal to this Court.

Commonwealth v. Rose, 64 A.3d 1072 (Pa. 2013).

Pincite

64 A.3d 1072 (Commonwealth v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.