Ra-Bey, T. v. Phila. Dept. of Prisons

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 17, 2020·No. 5 EM 2020·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

TETI AMUN RA-BEY EX RELATIONE : No. 5 EM 2020 [SMITH, CARL], : : Petitioner : : : v. : : : PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF : PRISONS I.E. [PHILADELPHIA : INDUSTRIAL CORRECTIONS CENTER] : D/B/A WARDEN MICHELLE FERRELL : PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON : PLEAS D/B/A TIMIKA LANE, JUDGE : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : D/B/A ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY : MIKE MCFARLAND, : : Respondents :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2020, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process and the “Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum” are DISMISSED. See

Commonwealth v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (explaining that hybrid representation

is not permitted). The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of

record and to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.

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

Ra-Bey, T. v. Phila. Dept. of Prisons, (Pa. 2020).

Ra-Bey, T. v. Phila. Dept. of Prisons (Ra-Bey, T. v. Phila. Dept. of Prisons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Reid
642 A.2d 453 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)