Commonwealth v. Hopfer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “when an appellant timely files for an enlargement or extension of time within which to file his Rule 1925(b) statement, the []court must explain why it finds that good cause was not shown before it may deny the request”
• enumerating extraordinary circumstances, such as where counsel fails to file court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement, which would warrant remand for filing of statement, based upon per se ineffectiveness of counsel
• enumerating extraordinary circumstances, such as where counsel fails to file court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement, which would warrant remand for filing of statement, based upon per se ineffectiveness of counsel
• PCRA court may not grant counsel’s request to withdraw from representation or dismiss PCRA petition sooner than twenty days before petitioner receives counsel’s official request for withdrawal
• “[A] court may not deny an appellant’s timely motion for enlargement of time to file a Rule 1925(b) statement without providing justification for its finding that good cause has not been shown.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).