Commonwealth v. Trowery

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Trowery

258 A.2d 499, 435 Pa. 586, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 760

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 4, 1969

DocketPetition for leave to appeal, 220

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 258 A.2d 499 (Commonwealth v. Trowery) 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. Trowery, 258 A.2d 499, 435 Pa. 586, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 760 (Pa. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and he appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed. A petition for allocatur followed. The petition was prepared by petitioner; counsel has merely furnished a backer and a typist. This is clearly not the “representation in the role of an advocate” which we require. Commonwealth v. Stancell, 435 Pa. 301, 256 A. 2d 798 (1969).

The record is remanded to the hearing court so that counsel can file a proper petition for allocatur.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and he appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed. A petition for allocatur followed. The petition was prepared by petitioner; counsel has merely furnished a backer and a typist. This is clearly not the “representation in the role of an advocate” which we require. Commonwealth v. Stancell, 435 Pa. 301, 256 A. 2d 798 (1969).

The record is remanded to the hearing court so that counsel can file a proper petition for allocatur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.2d 499, 435 Pa. 586, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-trowery-pa-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack