green
Positive treatment
Hot · 143 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 4×
145.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2018 ·
…the 60-day rule requires a petitioner to plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence.
at p. 310
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Robinson, V.
ecause appellant failed to explain why he did not request these files earlier, he did not establish the due diligence required to excuse him from over a decade of inaction.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Bocelli, C.
the 60-day rule requires a petitioner to plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Howard, D.
the proper questions with respect to timeliness are whether the government interfered with ppellant's access to the , and whether ppellant was duly diligent in seeking those files
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Perez, L.
the 60-day rule requires a petitioner to plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Casanova-Lanzo, M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In other words, … [Appellant] is required to show that, but for the interference of a government actor, “he could not have filed his claim earlier.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). [Appellant] claims there has been governmental interference by the Commonwealth and the courts withholding these reports and denying [Appellant]’s access to them.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. West, N.
Where a petitioner’s allegation of governmental interference is based on an alleged Brady violation, “the proper questions with respect to timeliness in this case are whether the government interfered with Appellant’s access to the [allegedly withheld evidence], and whether Appellant was duly diligent in seeking [that evidence].” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 581 , 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Morgan, R.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ford, J.
As our Supreme Court explained, to satisfy this “one year requirement,” a petitioner must “plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence.” See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310-311 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94, 98 (Pa. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, J.
Id. at 26 , citing Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wilkins, M.
As the Supreme Court has explained, a Brady violation may constitute governmental interference; however, an appellant may not “begin with a discussion of the merits of a Brady claim; rather [he] must begin with a discussion of why the instant petition was timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). -8- J-S03012-26 To satisfy the newly discovered facts exception, a petitioner must plead and prove “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ishler, G., Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). “[A] second or subsequent petition must present a strong prima facie showing ____________________________________________ 6 The court also denied Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel. -4- J-S03015-26 that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. White, R.
“In other words, [the petitioner] is required to show that but for the interference of a government actor ‘he could not have filed his claim earlier.’” Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Young, D.
Where a petitioner’s allegation of governmental interference is based on an alleged Brady violation, “the proper questions with respect to timeliness in this case are whether the government interfered with Appellant’s access to the [allegedly withheld evidence], and whether Appellant was duly diligent in seeking [that evidence].” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 581 , 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Marrero-Nardo, S., Sr.
As the Supreme Court has explained, a Brady violation may constitute governmental interference; however, an appellant may not “begin with a discussion of the merits of a Brady claim; rather [he] must begin with a discussion of why the instant petition was timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wakeel, H.
(3×)
Essentially, a petitioner is required to show that due to the interference of a government actor “he could not have filed his claim earlier.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Duboise, R.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Moore, E.
This requires the petitioner to show that, due to the interference of a government actor, “he could not have filed his claim earlier.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bartelli, K.
As our Supreme Court explained, to satisfy this “one year requirement,” a petitioner must “plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence.” See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310-311 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94, 98 (Pa. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Angle, A.
As our Supreme Court explained, to satisfy this “one year requirement,” a petitioner must “plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence.” See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310-311 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94, 98 (Pa. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Daniely, A.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). ____________________________________________ 2 For an exception to apply, a petitioner must (1) plead and prove one of the exceptions set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii); and (2) file a petition raising the exception within one year from the date on which the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). -5- J-S19019-25 The instant petition is untimely on its face.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Martin, C.
As the Supreme Court has explained, a Brady violation may constitute governmental interference; however, an appellant may not “begin with a discussion of the merits of a Brady claim; rather [he] must begin with a discussion of why the instant petition was timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bush, J.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Law, R.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jones, A.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Paxton, W.
The timeliness restrictions of the PCRA “are jurisdictional in nature and are to be strictly construed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Garcia, J.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lewis, K.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Elkington, G.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rogers, B.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Person, D.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stevens, R.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnson, E.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Garmon, L.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). -3- J-S32023-24 It is undisputed that the underlying petition is facially untimely. 2 The only matter to be considered is whether Appellant met the requirements of the newly discovered fact exception.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Riley, N.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lukach, J.
The timeliness restrictions of the PCRA “are jurisdictional in nature and are to be strictly construed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Waring, M.
Where a petitioner’s allegation of governmental interference is based on an alleged Brady violation, “the proper questions with respect to timeliness in this case are whether the government interfered with Appellant’s access to the [allegedly withheld evidence], and whether Appellant was duly diligent in seeking [that evidence].” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 581 , 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jewells, G.
The timeliness restrictions of the PCRA “are jurisdictional in nature and are to be strictly construed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hudgins, B.
The exception requires a petitioner to show that, because of the interference of a government actor, “he could not have filed his claim earlier.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hart, C.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). “[I]t is the burden of a petitioner to plead in the PCRA petition exceptions to the time bar and that burden necessarily entails an acknowledgement by the petitioner that the PCRA petition under review is untimely but that one or more of the exceptions apply.” Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1126 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Abrams, M.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). “[I]t is the burden of a petitioner to plead in the PCRA petition exceptions to the time bar and that burden necessarily entails an acknowledgement by the petitioner that the PCRA petition under review is untimely but that one or more of the exceptions apply.” Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1126 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Gonzalez, M.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). “[I]t is the burden of a petitioner to plead in the PCRA petition exceptions to the time bar and that burden necessarily entails an acknowledgement by the petitioner that the PCRA petition under review is untimely but that one or more of the exceptions apply.” Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1126 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Callahan, P.
Where a petitioner’s allegation of governmental interference is based on an alleged Brady violation, “the proper questions with respect to timeliness in this case are whether the government interfered with Appellant’s access to the [allegedly withheld evidence], and whether Appellant was duly diligent in seeking [that evidence].” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 581 , 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Maple, E.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Reaves, J.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). -3- J-S23014-24 It is undisputed that the underlying petition is facially untimely. 1 The only matter to be considered is whether Appellant met the requirements of the newly discovered fact exception.2 He has not.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Spuriel, E.
The timeliness restrictions of the PCRA “are jurisdictional in nature and are to be strictly construed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Deloe, M.
Where a petitioner’s allegation of governmental interference is based on an alleged Brady violation, “the proper questions with respect to timeliness in this case are whether the government interfered with Appellant’s access to the [allegedly withheld evidence], and whether Appellant was duly diligent in seeking [that evidence].” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 581 , 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Felder, K.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Edwards, N.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stokes, M.
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pew, A.
The timeliness restrictions of the PCRA “are jurisdictional in nature and are to be strictly construed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ross NICHOLAS, Lamont C. Bullock, Cory Smith, Jeremy Souder, Waldemar Rosario, Jerome Solomon, Barry Williams, Gary Melindez, Kareem Smith, Raymond White, Michael Thomaston and Demetrius Bailey, Inmates Confined by the Department of Corrections, Appellants
v.
Jeffrey A. BEARD, Ph. D., Secretary of Corrections, Appellee.
v.
Jeffrey A. BEARD, Ph. D., Secretary of Corrections, Appellee.
42 EAP 2006.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 19, 2008.
959 A.2d 306
Per Curiam.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2008, the order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Jurisdiction relinquished.