Commonwealth v. Finley
- Decided
- October 31, 1988
- Docket
- 02978
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Cited 4,104 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- allowing appointed counsel in a post- conviction proceeding to withdraw upon the submission of a no-merit letter outlining counsel’s assessment that the case lacked merit — Jiggetts v. Superintendent Sci Phoenix (2022)
- setting forth the procedure for counsel to withdraw from representing a petitioner in PCRA matters — Com. v. Reyes, M. (2014)
- setting forth standard used to evaluate withdrawal of counsel from collateral appeal — Com. v. Williams, R. (2015)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*392] POPOVICH, Judge:
This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court,[1] which, in reversing a three-judge panel of this Court,[2] concluded that federal constitutional law did not require that Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), be made applicable to collateral proceedings under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA).[3]
We perceive our role now to be one of assessing whether PCHA counsel’s “no-merit” letter and the PCHA court’s independent review of the evidence in light of the pro se PCHA request for relief comport with Finley’s entitlement to effective counsel under Pennsylvania law so as to sanction the withdrawal of PCHA counsel.
Cite this
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (1988)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.