COMMONWEALTH v. TROWERY, 435 Pa. 586 (1969)

258 A.2d 499

Commonwealth v. Trowery, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
November 4, 1969.

Criminal Law — Appeals — Counsel for petitioner for allocatur — Mere furnishing by counsel of a backer and a typist — Required representation in role of advocate.

Where counsel merely furnishes a backer and a typist for preparation by the petitioner of a petition for allocatur, this is not the required representation in the role of an advocate.

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

Petition for leave to appeal, No. 220, Jan. T., 1970, No. 290-A Miscellaneous Docket No. 17, from order of Superior Court, No. 62, Oct. T., 1969, affirming judgment of sentence of Court of Quarter Sessions of Chester County, March T., 1966, No. 189, in case of Commonwealth v. Trowery. Record remanded.

Same case in Superior Court: 215 Pa. Super. 768.

Indictment charging defendant with robbery with accomplices. Before KURTZ, J.

Verdict of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the judgment of the court below. Petition for allocatur filed with Supreme Court.

C. Barry Buckley, for petitioner.

Page 587

William H. Lamb, Assistant District Attorney, with him Norman J. Pine, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, November 4, 1969:

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and he appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed. A petition for allocatur followed. The petition was prepared by petitioner; counsel has merely furnished a backer and a typist. This is clearly not the “representation in the role of an advocate” which we require Commonwealth v. Stancell, 435 Pa. 301, 256 A.2d 798 (1969).

The record is remanded to the hearing court so that counsel can file a proper petition for allocatur.