Opinion
January 27, 1970.
Criminal Law — Counsel for defendant — Required representation in role of an advocate — Appeals — Petition for allocatur — Withdrawal of counsel.
1. In this case, in which it appeared that defendant filed a pro se petition for allocatur, in which he sought review of the order of the Superior Court affirming denial of his claimed PCHA rights; that the petition cited no reasons in support of his request for allocatur; and that petitioner's appointed counsel filed a "supplementary petition for allocatur", in which he sought the allowance of an appeal for "those reasons and grounds set out by the appellant in his petition for allowance of an appeal"; it was Held that such petition failed to comport with the requirement of representation by counsel in the role of an advocate.
2. Where it appeared that petitioner's counsel In the Superior Court had informed petitioner by letter that in his opinion an appeal to the Supreme Court would be unavailing, it was Held that, to the extent that this letter might have been an attempt by counsel to withdraw, it failed to comply with the required standards for withdrawal.
Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.
Petition for leave to appeal, No. 3132-A. Miscellaneous Docket, from order of Superior Court, No. 206, April T., 1968, affirming order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Washington County, May T., 1967, No. 56, in case of Commonwealth v. Garland Haywood. Case remanded to hearing court with directions.
Same case in Superior Court: 215 Pa. Super. 721.
Petition for post-conviction relief.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by McCUNE, J. Petition for allocatur filed in the Supreme Court.
William C. Porter, for appellant.
Richard DiSalle, First Assistant District Attorney, and Jess D. Costa, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for allocatur in which he seeks review of the order of the Superior Court affirming denial of his claimed PCHA rights. The petition cites no reasons in support of this request for allocatur. Petitioner's appointed counsel has filed a "supplementary petition for allocatur" in which he seeks the allowance of an appeal for "those reasons and grounds set out by the appellant in his petition for allowance of an appeal." Such a petition utterly fails to comport with our requirement of "representation in the role of an advocate." Commonwealth v. Stancell, 435 Pa. 301, 256 A.2d 798 (1969). See also Supreme Court Rule 69 (petitions for allowance of an appeal must set forth particularly the questions involved and the reasons supporting the grant of the petition). We note that petitioner's counsel in the Superior Court had informed petitioner by letter that in his opinion an appeal to the Supreme Court would be unavailing. To the extent that this letter may have been an attempt by counsel to withdraw, it failed to comply with the standards for withdrawal set forth in Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (1968). See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 433 Pa. 334, 250 A.2d 487 (1969). This case is remanded to the hearing court with directions that counsel file a proper allocatur petition or a proper petition to withdraw.