# Commonwealth v. Ellis

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1993 · 534 Pa. 176

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637175

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. James ELLIS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 27, 1993
- **Citations:** 534 Pa. 176; 626 A.2d 1137; 1993 Pa. LEXIS 100
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Larsen
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Montemuro
- **Cited by:** 298 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637175

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation either at trial or on appeal and that a defendant may not confuse and overburden the court by filing pro se documents the same time his counsel is filing documents on his behalf
- stating “the number of claims raised in an appeal is usually in inverse proportion to their merit and that a large number of claims raises the presumption that all are invalid”
- holding that, while there is no right to hybrid representation, there is a right of appeal pursuant to Article 5, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution

## Opinion text

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Appellate review of legitimate issues of justice should not be precluded because the pro se defendant raises an issue that his attorney did not recognize or did not agree with. Many times, defendants are without the resources necessary to secure the legal representation of their choice, leaving them at the mercy of court appointed attorneys. Moreover, the fact that a defendant raises issues in his or her pro se brief, other than those raised by his or her attorney, cannot mean that the issues are not compelling or valid. To make a blanket statement that such issues are not worthy of appellate review denies these pro se defendants any semblance of justice.
Additionally, this Court now allows criminal attorneys to get away with legal malpractice up to and possibly including reckless and wanton disregard of the defendant’s interest. See Bailey et al. v. Tucker et al., 621 A.2d 108, 114 (1993). With such lax accountability for attorneys representing criminal defendants, any court should welcome pro se briefs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637175. Public record. Not legal advice.