Basilio v. Camray Development & Construction Co.

Parentheticals

• applying Ellis II and holding courts will not be required to consider defendant’s pro se filings when qualified counsel represents defendant

  Commonwealth v. Devine

• stating Commonwealth does not violate Brady rule when it fails to turn over evidence readily obtainable by or known to defendant

  Commonwealth v. Lambert

• explaining: “[Supreme Court] will not require courts considering PCRA petitions to struggle through the pro se filings of defendants when qualified counsel represent those defendants”

  Com. v. Soto, L.

• affirming PCRA court’s denial of appellant’s pro se request to supplement PCRA petition while appellant was represented by counsel

  Com. v. Maldonado-Rosado, W.

• "[D]ecision whether to allow [ ] hybrid representation is within the sound discretion of the trial court."

  Commonwealth v. Baney