Richardson, H. v. CCP Phila. Cty.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 30, 2016·No. 162 EM 2016·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

HIRAM RICHARDSON, : No. 162 EM 2016 :

Petitioner :

: :

v. :

: :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, :

:

Respondent :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2016, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. See

Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (explaining that hybrid representation is

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

record.

It is noted that Petitioner’s PCRA petition has been pending before the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for more than two years.

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the President

Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

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

Richardson, H. v. CCP Phila. Cty., (Pa. 2016).

Richardson, H. v. CCP Phila. Cty. (Richardson, H. v. CCP Phila. Cty.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Ali
10 A.3d 282 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)