Case ID: pa-super_262/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n      SPAETH, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

396 A.2d 775
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Anthony BUTLER, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted June 27, 1978.
    Decided Dec. 29, 1978.
    
      Raymond E. Kumor, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Edward G. Rendell, District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.
    Before JACOBS, President Judge, and HOFFMAN, CER-CONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, SPAETH and HESTER, JJ.
   PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 1978, the petition to withdraw is denied. Counsel for appellant is directed either (1) to file an amended request for leave to withdraw that meets in all respects the requirements of notice to the appellant, see Commonwealth v. Liska, 252 Pa.Super. 103, 380 A.2d 1303, 1306 (1977), and to file a withdrawal brief that meets the description in Commonwealth v. Greer, 455 Pa. 106, 108-09, 314 A.2d 513, 514-15 (1974), or (2) to proceed with the appeal by filing an advocate’s brief on the merits. In either case, counsel is to file a new brief and request, or new brief alone, within thirty (30) days, or risk sanctions.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting statement, in which VAN der VOORT, J., joins.

SPAETH, Judge,

dissenting:

Appellant’s counsel on appeal was also his trial counsel. Consequently, if appellant raises his counsel’s effectiveness before this court, we should not reject his claim, nor should we deem it waived because of appellant’s failure to assert it in his posttrial motions. Commonwealth v. Patrick, 477 Pa. 284, 383 A.2d 935 (1978). In the interests of judicial economy I should remand for the appointment of new counsel so that all of appellant’s claims can be disposed of at one time.

VAN der VOORT, J., joins in this statement.