Commonwealth v. Grazier

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a Rule 121 colloquy is required only in response to a timely and unequivocal invocation of the right to proceed pro se
• holding that a Rule 121 colloquy is required only in response to a timely and unequivocal invocation of the right to proceed pro se
• holding that a Rule 121 colloquy is required only in response to a timely and unequivocal invocation of the right to proceed pro se
• holding that a Rule 121 colloquy is required only in response to a timely and unequivocal invocation of the right to proceed pro se
• holding that a Rule 121 colloquy is required only in response to a timely and unequivocal invocation of the right to proceed pro se
• holding that a hearing is required to determine if defendant’s waiver of right to counsel at appellate stage is knowing, intelligent and voluntary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).