Commonwealth v. Hertzog
Commonwealth v. Hertzog
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from the summary dismissal of a pro se Post Conviction Hearing Act petition.
Two circumstances will allow the non-appointment of requested counsel. One, the lack of authentic financial need, was not addressed in this dismissal. The other exception arises when the same issues have been adjudicated previously in a petition with assistance of counsel. Commonwealth v. Blair, 470 Pa. 598, 369 A.2d 1153 (1977). This is appellant Hertzog’s first appeal from this conviction, so this exception does not apply here.
This case is entirely on point with a case decided by this court last year, Commonwealth v. Johnson, 285 Pa.Super. 158, 426 A.2d 1190 (1981). We note that even the Commonwealth’s representative in this appeal, the Luzerne County District Attorney, agrees with the applicability of Johnson to the case before us. In Johnson, a legally identical set of facts were presented and the same result obtained as we decide here.
. 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq.
. We also note that the trial court did not have the benefit of Johnson, which came down more than three years after his dismissal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.