Murphy v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Murphy v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA

981 A.2d 1285, 603 Pa. 69, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2025

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 22, 2009·No. 113 EM 2009·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2009, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 537 Pa. 167, 642 A.2d 453 (1994) (hybrid *70 representation improper). The Prothonotary is directed to forward these filings to counsel of record. See CP-51-CR-0013668-2008.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2009, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 537 Pa. 167, 642 A.2d 453 (1994) (hybrid *70 representation improper). The Prothonotary is directed to forward these filings to counsel of record. See CP-51-CR-0013668-2008.

Murphy v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA, 981 A.2d 1285, 603 Pa. 69, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2025 (Pa. 2009).

Pincite

981 A.2d 1285 (Murphy v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related