Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

303 Pa. Super. 161

Commonwealth v. Brobst

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 13, 1982

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1982-08-13

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1983

1 state decisions

Relies on 280 Pa. Super. 427 - Commonwealth v. Wentz

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-08-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WIEAND, Judge,

¶1dissenting:

¶2Although repeatedly told of his right to be represented by counsel and admonished to “strongly consider” doing so and although financially able to employ counsel, Leon J. Brobst, a businessman, elected to represent himself, with the assistance of two friends, on charges of failing to pay state income taxes. When asked why he had elected to represent *166himself, Brobst said that he had been unable to find an attorney who understood the defense which he wished to present. The majority, relying on cases in which a defendant was unable to afford counsel, holds that Brobst could not elect to represent himself unless a record colloquy demonstrated that he knew the maximum sentence if convicted. In my judgment this is an unnecessary formality under the circumstances of this case; and, therefore, I dissent. I would find the waiver of counsel to be a voluntary, knowing and intelligent act and would affirm the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Wentz, 280 Pa.Super. 427, 421 A.2d 796 (1980).

/303/pasuper/161 · .json · Public domain