Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Williams

Citations

  • 151 A.3d 621
  • 2016 Pa. Super. 262
  • 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 697

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that this Court is required to docket a pro se notice of appeal despite Appellant being represented by counsel
  • holding that a pro se notice of appeal protects a constitutional right and is distinguishable from other filings
  • holding that this Court must docket a pro se notice of appeal even if the appellant is represented by counsel
  • holding that, when a petitioner is represented by counsel, pro se motions have no legal effect and, therefore, are legal nullities
  • holding that where a criminal defendant files a motion pro se while represented by counsel, the pro se motion is deemed to be a legal nullity with no legal effect
  • holding that, unlike other filings, because notice of appeal protects a constitutional right this Court is required to docket a pro se notice of appeal despite an appellant being represented by counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shogan, Lazarus, Jenkins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 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.