Court Opinion

ID: 6297117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-18 17:24:29.430537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:25.070094
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
concurs and dissents:
I concurred in the result in Commonwealth v. Liska, 252 Pa.Super. 103, 380 A.2d 1303 (1977) because I did not agree with the language now cited by the majority as precedent in this situation for spelling out in advance, and in effect approving the merits of, an argument not yet advanced to this court. I am strongly opposed to this practice. Therefore, like the majority, I would deny the petition to withdraw. However, I would not remand for the appointment of new counsel. I would simply deny the petition to withdraw and indicate that our review reveals an arguably meritorious issue requiring an advocate’s brief on the merits within thirty days or risk sanctions.