An en banc Superior Court panel used Pennsylvania’s amended Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) in one of its first applications to settle the Catch-22 that arises when a criminal defendant insists on an appeal but his attorney can’t identify issues he can ethically raise.
In Commonwealth v. Goodwin, PICS Case No. 07-0943 (Pa. Super. June 13, 2007) Bender, J.; Daniels, J. concurring (13 pages), Judge John T. Bender wrote the amended Rule 1925(b) allows counsel to file a statement of intent to file an brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) instead of a 1925(b) Statement identifying issues to be raised on appeal.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
