Commonwealth v. Trowery

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Trowery

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 4, 1969·No. Petition for leave to appeal, 220·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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.

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

Pincite

258 A.2d 499 (Commonwealth v. Trowery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related