Court Opinion

ID: 9701814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:39:03.151046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:34.753476
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice
(concurring).
My review of the record in this case satisfies me that the order of the Court is warranted, and I therefore concur in it. I add this statement merely to make clear my own view that the Court should not establish a per se rule to the effect that any lawyer appointed to represent a petitioner under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 26, 1966, P.L. 1580, § 1, et seq., 19 P.S. § 1180-1, et seq. (Supp.1975-76), must file an amended petition or be deemed to have failed in his professional duties to his client, who may then proceed anew with different counsel. I do not understand that such a rule is being established in this case.