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.