Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 Pa. Commw. 100

Scott v. Jacobs

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 4, 1983

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1983-08-04

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2009

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) Notify the parolee of his or her request to withdraw; (2) Furnish the parolee with a copy of his or her Anders brief; (3) Advise the parolee of his or her right to retain new counsel or raise any points which he or she may deem worthy of consideration in a pro se brief; and (4) Allow the parolee thirty days in which to respond to counsels motion to withdraw either by filing a pro se brief or procuring substitute counsel.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 96 Pa. Commw. 51 - Santiago v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

Relies on Anders v. California · Commonwealth v. McClendon · Albright v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-08-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam Opinion,

¶1Counsel appointed to represent the Petitioner1 in this case has filed a petition for leave of court to withdraw his appearance because counsel has deter*101mined that Petitioner’s appeal is frivolous. Counsel has furnished us with an “Anders” brief.2

¶2In Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981) our Supreme Court mandated that before a request to withdraw may be considered, counsel must: 1) notify the client of his request to withdraw, 2) furnish the client with a copy of his Anders brief, and 3) advise his client of his right to retain new counsel or raise any points he may deem worthy of consideration in a pro se brief.

¶3The record before us does not indicate that a copy of counsel’s petition to withdraw was served upon his client nor is there any evidence that he advised his client of the right to retain new counsel or raise any point the client may deem worthy in a pro .se brief.

¶4Under these circumstances, we must deny counsel’s petition without prejudice to his right to resubmit his petition after he has complied with the requirements of McClendonor, in the alternative, counsel may submit an advocate’s brief. Commonwealth v. Walker, Pa. Superior Ct. , 457 A.2d 571 (1983).

¶5Per Curiam Order

¶6The petition of Timothy P. Wile, Esquire to withdraw as counsel is denied without prejudice to resubmit in a manner consistent with the foregoing opinion. Jurisdiction retained.

¶7 Wyman Scott.

¶8 In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), it was held that if counsel, after a conscientious examination of the case, determines that a case is wholly frivolous, it is counsel’s duty to advise the court and request permission to withdraw. This Court recently held that where counsel determined that a late appeal would constitute a frivolous law suit, counsel’s refusal to represent a client was not only justified but mandated by the canons of professional responsibility. Albright v. Department of Public Welfare, 71 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 114, 454 A.2d 1149 (1983).

/76/pacommw/100 · .json · Public domain