Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Basilio v. Camray Development & Construction Co.
528 U.S. 975
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1999-11-01
- Topic
- finance
How later courts describe this case
- applying Ellis II and holding courts will not be required to consider defendant’s pro se filings when qualified counsel represents defendant
- stating Commonwealth does not violate Brady rule when it fails to turn over evidence readily obtainable by or known to defendant
- 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”
- affirming PCRA court’s denial of appellant’s pro se request to supplement PCRA petition while appellant was represented by counsel
- "[D]ecision whether to allow [ ] hybrid representation is within the sound discretion of the trial court."
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Basilio v. Camray Development & Construction Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 23 opinions
Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.