green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.0 score
“ecision whether to allow hybrid representation is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Baney
ecision whether to allow hybrid representation is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Mack
See United States v. O'Neal, 180 F.3d 115, 125 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 422 (1999); Mauldin, 109 F.3d at 1163 ; United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1105 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Gibson, 64 F.3d 617, 625-26 (11th Cir. 1995); Hardy, 52 F.3d at 150 ; Craveiro, 907 F.2d at 264 - 65.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mack
See United States v. O'Neal, 180 F.3d 115, 125 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 422 (1999); Mauldin, 109 F.3d at 1163 ; United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1105 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Gibson, 64 F.3d 617, 625-26 (11th Cir. 1995); Hardy, 52 F.3d at 150 ; Craveiro , 907 F.2d at 264 - 65.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Basemore
See Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233, 252-53 , 724 A.2d 293, 303 , cert. denied, -U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 422 , 145 L.Ed.2d 330 (1999). 7 *274 Alternatively, Basemore asserts that the issues raised for the first time before this Court may be reviewed because: court-appointed PCRA counsel was ineffective; this constitutes the earliest point in time in which PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness could have been raised, see Commonwealth v. Wallace, 555 Pa. 397, 406 , 724 A.2d 916, 921 (1999); and ineffective assistance of counsel excuses waiver under the PCRA.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Maldonado-Rosado, W.
See also Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233, 251 , 724 A.2d 293, 302 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 975 , 120 S.Ct. 422 , 145 L.Ed.2d 330 (1999) (affirming PCRA court’s denial of appellant’s pro se request to supplement PCRA petition while appellant was represented by counsel).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Washington, D.
See also Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233 , 724 A.2d 293 (1999), certiorari denied, 528 U.S. 975 , 120 S.Ct. 422 , 145 L.Ed.2d 330 (1999) (explaining PCRA provisions regarding waiver of issues, coupled with requirement of proper preservation of issues for appellate review, force petitioner to frame claims as “layered” ineffectiveness claims, because there has usually been waiver due to previous counsel’s failure to raise or preserve (Footnote Continued Next Page) -3- J-S13020-21 failing to raise the following arguments in the PCRA court: (1) trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for fail…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pursell
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 99-6089.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 1, 1999.
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)
Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.