Citation network
Pennsylvania Vs. Finley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 1987
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 551 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
-
U.S. 551 (1987) Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
-
respondent's constitutional rights, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Superior Court relied on Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
federal constitutional right to counsel when pursuing a discretionary appeal on direct review of his conviction, Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that counsel's actions comport with the Anders procedures. Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
holding in Anders was based on the underlying constitutional right to appointed counsel established in Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon their convictions, see Johnson v. AverySearch
-
further. Thus, we have rejected suggestions that we establish a right to counsel on discretionary appeals. Wainwright v. TornaSearch
-
right when attacking a conviction that has long since become final upon exhaustion of the appellate process. See Boyd v. DuttonSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 405 U. S. 7 , n. 2 (1972) (POWELL, J., dissenting). In Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
Page 481 U. S. 556 defendant's consent, it is clear that the State need not provide any appeal at all. McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
review. It is not part of the criminal proceeding itself, and it is in fact considered to be civil in nature. See Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
through direct review of his conviction. States have no obligation to provide this avenue of relief, cf. United States v. MacCollomSearch
-
procedures which were designed solely to protect that underlying constitutional right. Respondent relies on Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
s argument that, since it need not provide an appeal in the first place, see Page 481 U. S. 558 McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
here has suffered no deprivation, assuming for the moment that the Due Process Clause is relevant. Cf. Wainright v. TornaSearch
-
erred in its belief that the United States Constitution required the application of the procedures mandated by Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
those established by Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 738 (1967), by Commonwealth v. McClendonSearch
-
to the client. The trial court may grant counsel's request to withdraw after a full examination of the record. Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the independence of the state grounds, since there was no federal law interwoven with this determination. See Michigan v. LongSearch
-
the McClendon procedures -- not the Anders requirements -- are required on collateral review. Commonwealth v. McGethSearch
-
Supreme Court has never held that Anders procedures are required on collateral review. In Commonwealth v. LowenbergSearch
-
adversarial legal interests, there is no case or controversy regarding the adequacy of McClendon . See Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
appellate review, for which appointment of counsel is not required by the Federal Constitution under Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
Commonwealth v. MitchellSearch
-
it must ensure that it is not withdrawn in a manner inconsistent with equal protection and due process. See Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
Herring v. NewSearch
-
Suggs v. UnitedSearch
-
while a person who can afford it obtains meaningful review. Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
lower court complies with the alternative requirements enunciated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. McClendonSearch
-
yet chosen which procedure to follow, there is no final judgment or decree that we can review. Cf. Republic Gas Co. v. OklahomaSearch
-
Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
Under Pennsylvania law, the State Supreme Court's refusal to review is not a decision on the merits. See Commonwealth v. BrittonSearch
-
Dayton v. DaytonSearch
-
does not preclude a determination of this case under the Commonwealth's own laws and Constitution. See South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
this Court's 1967 decision in Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
test of Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Court of the United States are far too rare to make it appropriate for them to become familiar with the Michigan v. LongSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial