Commonwealth v. Stansell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Stansell

780 A.2d 603

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 21, 2001·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2001, it is ORDERED as follows:

Petitioner was represented by appointed counsel in his appeal to the Superior Court, which resulted in affirmance of the judgment of sentence. Thereafter, petitioner filed a pro se petition for allowance of appeal.

Pa. R.Crim.P. 122(C)(3), formerly Pa. R.Crim.P. 316(e)(iii), requires that: “Where counsel has been assigned, such assignment shall be effective until final judgment, including any proceedings upon direct appeal.”

Petitioner’s counsel, appointed in connection with his appeal to the Superior Court, is directed to proceed in accordance with the Rule. Commonwealth v. Hickox, 433 Pa. 144, 249 A.2d 777 (1969).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2001, it is ORDERED as follows:

Petitioner was represented by appointed counsel in his appeal to the Superior Court, which resulted in affirmance of the judgment of sentence. Thereafter, petitioner filed a pro se petition for allowance of appeal.

Pa. R.Crim.P. 122(C)(3), formerly Pa. R.Crim.P. 316(e)(iii), requires that: “Where counsel has been assigned, such assignment shall be effective until final judgment, including any proceedings upon direct appeal.”

Petitioner’s counsel, appointed in connection with his appeal to the Superior Court, is directed to proceed in accordance with the Rule. Commonwealth v. Hickox, 433 Pa. 144, 249 A.2d 777 (1969).

Commonwealth v. Stansell, 780 A.2d 603 (Pa. 2001).

Pincite

780 A.2d 603 (Commonwealth v. Stansell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related