Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

605 Pa. 403

989 A.2d 1290

Commonwealth v. Sanchez

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 31, 2010

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2010-03-31

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 2013

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the Application to Withdraw as Counsel, the request for a stay, and the request for designation of in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status, the matter is remanded to the trial court. The trial court is ordered to rule promptly on counsel’s January 27, 2010 Motion to Withdraw as well as appellant’s Motions requesting IFP status and appointment of new counsel, which were filed on December 29, 2009, and renewed on January 27, 2010. In ruling on these motions, the trial court is directed to ascertain the basis for, and the legitimacy of, counsel’s assertions that they are not authorized to continue as appellant’s counsel in a direct appeal, as well as to consider Pa.R.P.C. 6.2 and Explanatory Comment (relating to the appointment of counsel). Appellant’s request to stay the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925 order dated January 8, 2010, is DENIED without prejudice.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Sanchez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-03-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2 AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the Application to Withdraw as Counsel, the request for a stay, and the request for designation of in forma pauper-is (“IFP”) status, the matter is remanded to the trial court. The trial court is ordered to rule promptly on counsel’s January 27, 2010 Motion to Withdraw as well as appellant’s Motions requesting IFP status and appointment of new coun *404 sel, which were filed on December 29, 2009, and renewed on January 27, 2010. In ruling on these motions, the trial court is directed to ascertain the basis for, and the legitimacy of, counsel’s assertions that they are not authorized to continue as appellant’s counsel in a direct appeal, as well as to consider Pa.R.P.C. 6.2 and Explanatory Comment (relating to the appointment of counsel). Appellant’s request to stay the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925 order dated January 8, 2010, is DENIED without prejudice.

¶3 Jurisdiction relinquished.

/605/pa/403 · .json · Public domain