Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Willis

Citations

  • 29 A.3d 393
  • 2011 Pa. Super. 203
  • 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2721
  • 2011 WL 4424755

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that in the absence of a petition to withdraw and no-merit letter, PCRA court lacks authority to permit withdrawal of counsel
  • concluding that “the [PCRA] court erred in permitting [hybrid] representation during the disposition of [the defendant’s] PCRA petition”
  • recognizing that the timeliness of the notice of appeal implicates the jurisdiction of this Court
  • recognizing that the timeliness of the notice of appeal implicates the jurisdiction of this Court
  • holding that the PCRA court had erred in permitting dual representation during the disposition of the petitioner’s PCRA petition
  • holding the PCRA court erred when it accepted and considered the merits of Willis’s pro se amended PCRA petition while Willis was represented by counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Musmanno, Bender, Fitzgerald

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 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.