Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 8/1/1994

Commonwealth v. Rogers

Citations

645 A.2d 223
537 Pa. 581
1994 Pa. LEXIS 327

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that a criminal defendant or appellant has the right to proceed pro se at trial and through appellate proceedings
holding that a defendant may not seek to represent himself after counsel has filed an appellate brief
holding a defendant has a right to proceed pro se, but a request to change status is untimely if initiated after a counseled brief has been filed on his or her behalf
explaining that \ Ellis specifically condemns the practice of filing separate pro se briefs\ and holding that an appellant cannot terminate counsel after the filing of a counseled brief \simply because he wishes to file pro se appellate briefs\
explaining that “Ellis specifically condemns the practice of filing separate pro se briefs” and holding that an appellant cannot terminate counsel after the filing of a counseled brief “simply because he wishes to file pro se appellate briefs”
stating that while an appellant has the right to proceed pro se on appeal, a criminal appellant cannot terminate counsel after counsel has filed an appellate brief simply because he wishes to file a brief pro se

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Castille, Montemuro, Zarpala

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.