Court Opinion

ID: 9761885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:57:51.213447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:27.206268
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
concurring:
I join the Majority in reversing the Post-Conviction Hearing Act1 court’s summary dismissal of the appellant’s pro se request for PCHA relief and the appointment of counsel.
I would only add that the Pennsylvania v. Finley, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987) case foreclosed a state court from basing the appointment of counsel in collateral proceedings, e.g., under the PCHA, upon the federal Constitution (Amendment VI). This in no way, however, precludes a state’s highest court from promulgating Rules of Criminal Procedure (see Pa. Const. Art. V, Sec. 10(c)) affording an indigent with counsel under prescribed circumstances, as is the case in Pennsylvania. See Pa.R. Crim.P. 1503(a).

. 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq., repealed; reenacted at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9551.