Commonwealth v. Stull

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Stull

266 A.2d 477, 439 Pa. 20, 1970 Pa. LEXIS 650

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 11, 1970

Docket3264A Miscellaneous Docket

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.2d 477 (Commonwealth v. Stull) 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. Stull, 266 A.2d 477, 439 Pa. 20, 1970 Pa. LEXIS 650 (Pa. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Cubiam,

Petitioner filed a PCHA petition alleging, inter alia, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of a shortness of preparation time, and that there was a conflict of interest in trial counsel’s representation of petitioner’s codefendant. The first claim is one which, if true, would entitle petitioner to relief; the second needs additional factual allegations to entitle petitioner to relief. The hearing court, however, denied the petition without appointing counsel, or conducting an evidentiary hearing, or giving petitioner leave to amend. This was error. See Post Conviction Hearing Act §§9, 11, 12, 19 P.S. §§1180-9, -11, -12 (Supp. 1970). Petitioner should be granted a hearing with counsel on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and should be given leave to amend on his conflict of interest claim.

The allocatur is granted, the order of the Superior Court reversed, the order of the hearing court vacated, and the case remanded for further consistent proceedings.

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

Opinion

Peb Cubiam,

Petitioner filed a PCHA petition alleging, inter alia, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of a shortness of preparation time, and that there was a conflict of interest in trial counsel’s representation of petitioner’s codefendant. The first claim is one which, if true, would entitle petitioner to relief; the second needs additional factual allegations to entitle petitioner to relief. The hearing court, however, denied the petition without appointing counsel, or conducting an evidentiary hearing, or giving petitioner leave to amend. This was error. See Post Conviction Hearing Act §§9, 11, 12, 19 P.S. §§1180-9, -11, -12 (Supp. 1970). Petitioner should be granted a hearing with counsel on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and should be given leave to amend on his conflict of interest claim.

The allocatur is granted, the order of the Superior Court reversed, the order of the hearing court vacated, and the case remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.2d 477, 439 Pa. 20, 1970 Pa. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-stull-pa-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack