Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1978

Commonwealth v. Butler

Commonwealth v. Butler
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Decided December 29, 1978 · Cer, Cone, Files, Hester, Hoffman, Jacobs, Price, Spaeth, Voort
262 Pa. Super. 320; 396 A.2d 775; 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4246

Commonwealth v. Butler

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 1978, the petition to withdraw is denied. Counsel for appellant is directed either (1) to file an amended request for leave to withdraw that meets in all respects the requirements of notice to the appellant, see Commonwealth v. Liska, 252 Pa.Super. 103, 380 A.2d 1303, 1306 (1977), and to file a withdrawal brief that meets the description in Commonwealth v. Greer, 455 Pa. 106, 108-09, 314 A.2d 513, 514-15 (1974), or (2) to proceed with the appeal by filing an advocate’s brief on the merits. In either case, counsel is to file a new brief and request, or new brief alone, within thirty (30) days, or risk sanctions.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting statement, in which VAN der VOORT, J., joins.

Dissenting Opinion

SPAETH, Judge,

dissenting:

Appellant’s counsel on appeal was also his trial counsel. Consequently, if appellant raises his counsel’s effectiveness before this court, we should not reject his claim, nor should we deem it waived because of appellant’s failure to assert it in his posttrial motions. Commonwealth v. Patrick, 477 Pa. 284, 383 A.2d 935 (1978). In the interests of judicial economy I should remand for the appointment of new counsel so that all of appellant’s claims can be disposed of at one time.

VAN der VOORT, J., joins in this statement.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.