Commonwealth v. Sanchez

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Sanchez

989 A.2d 1290, 605 Pa. 403, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 623

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 31, 2010

Docket605 CAP

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 989 A.2d 1290 (Commonwealth v. Sanchez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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. Sanchez, 989 A.2d 1290, 605 Pa. 403, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 623 (Pa. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the Application to Withdraw as Counsel, the request for a stay, and the request for designation of in forma pauper-is (“IFP”) status, the matter is remanded to the trial court. The trial court is ordered to rule promptly on counsel’s January 27, 2010 Motion to Withdraw as well as appellant’s Motions requesting IFP status and appointment of new coun *404 sel, which were filed on December 29, 2009, and renewed on January 27, 2010. In ruling on these motions, the trial court is directed to ascertain the basis for, and the legitimacy of, counsel’s assertions that they are not authorized to continue as appellant’s counsel in a direct appeal, as well as to consider Pa.R.P.C. 6.2 and Explanatory Comment (relating to the appointment of counsel). Appellant’s request to stay the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925 order dated January 8, 2010, is DENIED without prejudice.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the Application to Withdraw as Counsel, the request for a stay, and the request for designation of in forma pauper-is (“IFP”) status, the matter is remanded to the trial court. The trial court is ordered to rule promptly on counsel’s January 27, 2010 Motion to Withdraw as well as appellant’s Motions requesting IFP status and appointment of new coun *404 sel, which were filed on December 29, 2009, and renewed on January 27, 2010. In ruling on these motions, the trial court is directed to ascertain the basis for, and the legitimacy of, counsel’s assertions that they are not authorized to continue as appellant’s counsel in a direct appeal, as well as to consider Pa.R.P.C. 6.2 and Explanatory Comment (relating to the appointment of counsel). Appellant’s request to stay the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925 order dated January 8, 2010, is DENIED without prejudice.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

989 A.2d 1290, 605 Pa. 403, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-sanchez-pa-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack