From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Hickox

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 1969
433 Pa. 144 (Pa. 1969)

Summary

In Commonwealth v. Hickox, 433 Pa. 144, 249 A.2d 777 (1969) in response to a pro se petition for allocatur, we directed that counsel appointed for petitioner proceed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 318(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. That Rule, which pre-dated the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P. S. § 1180-1 et seq., is applicable only to direct appeals.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Taylor

Opinion

January 31, 1969.

Criminal Law — Counsel for defendant — Appointment of counsel on appeal to Superior Court — Refusal of counsel to proceed further after unsuccessful appeal — Pa. R. Crim. P. 318(c).

Where it appeared that counsel was appointed to represent petitioner in his appeal to the Superior Court, an appeal was filed which resulted in an affirmance of the judgment of sentence, and thereafter counsel for petitioner informed petitioner that he would proceed no further with the matter, petitioner's counsel was directed to proceed in accordance with Pa. R. Crim. P. 318(c).

Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

Petition for leave to appeal, Miscellaneous Docket, No. 3083 A, from order of Superior Court, April T., 1968, No. 123, affirming judgment of sentence of Court of Quarter Sessions of Indiana County, June T., 1966, No. 48, in case of Commonwealth v. Richard Lorraine Hickox. Petitioner's counsel directed to proceed in accordance with Pa. R. Crim. P. 318(c).

Same case in Superior Court: 213 Pa. Super. 778.

Indictment charging defendant with aiding and abetting in the commission of robbery. Before CLARK, P. J.

Verdict of guilty as accessory before the fact and judgment of sentence thereon. Defendant appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the judgment of the court below. Defendant petitioned for leave to appeal.

Richard Lorraine Hickox, appellant, in propria persona.

W. Thomas Malcolm, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.


At trial, petitioner was represented by appointed counsel. Subsequent to trial, new counsel was appointed to represent petitioner in his appeal to the Superior Court. Such an appeal was filed and resulted in an affirmance of the judgment of sentence. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner informed petitioner that he would proceed no further with the matter.

Rule 318(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that: "Where counsel has been assigned, such assignment shall be effective until final judgment, including any proceedings upon direct appeal."

Petitioner's counsel, appointed in connection with his appeal to the Superior Court, is directed to proceed in accordance with the Rule.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Hickox

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 1969
433 Pa. 144 (Pa. 1969)

In Commonwealth v. Hickox, 433 Pa. 144, 249 A.2d 777 (1969) in response to a pro se petition for allocatur, we directed that counsel appointed for petitioner proceed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 318(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. That Rule, which pre-dated the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P. S. § 1180-1 et seq., is applicable only to direct appeals.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Taylor
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Hickox

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth v. Hickox, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 31, 1969

Citations

433 Pa. 144 (Pa. 1969)
249 A.2d 777

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Taylor

The Superior Court affirmed, and we are now faced with petitioner's pro se petition for allocatur. In…

Commonwealth v. Stancell

The petition is typed, and is signed by the prisoner. The only indication that appointed counsel existed is…