Winston, W. v. Ct. Com. Pleas Phila. Cty.
This text of Winston, W. v. Ct. Com. Pleas Phila. Cty. (Winston, W. v. Ct. Com. Pleas Phila. Cty.) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT
WILLIAM WINSTON, : No. 110 EM 2018 : Petitioner : : : v. : : : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, : : Respondent :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2018, the Application for Leave to File
Original Process is GRANTED. Considering that Petitioner’s PCRA petition has been
pending for approximately three years with no judicial action appearing on the docket, the
Application for Writ of Mandamus is GRANTED.
Further, the common pleas court docket sheet indicates that counsel’s
representation is inactive. See Commonwealth v. Winston, CP-51-CR-0402771-1975.
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to determine issues
relative to Petitioner’s representation status within 60 days, including whether he is
entitled to court-appointed counsel. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C).
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is further DIRECTED to
ensure that, following resolution of the representation issue, the final adjudication of the
PCRA petition occurs in due course. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to serve the order on the President Judge of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, as well as on the Philadelphia District
Attorney’s Office.
[110 EM 2018] - 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Winston, W. v. Ct. Com. Pleas Phila. Cty., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-w-v-ct-com-pleas-phila-cty-pa-2018.