Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710 (Pa. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710 (Pa. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Jones, R. (pasuperct, 2022-03-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Jones, R. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · confidence medium
Pander, 100 A.3d at 642 , citing Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (per curiam order) (concluding it was error to uphold summary dismissal on grounds that petitioner did not include witness certifications from trial counsel where PCRA court did not provide notice of this defect) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(B) (“When a petition for post-conviction collateral relief is defective as originally filed, the judge shall order amendment of the petition, indicate the nature of the defects, and specify the time within which an amended petition shall be filed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Jackson, D. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2021 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(B)) (where dismissal of PCRA petition based on failure to include witness certification reversed in per curiam order).7 ____________________________________________ 6 We note that the Commonwealth addressed the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to object to the prosecutor’s comments at trial.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Washington, L.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1097 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Robinson, 596 Pa. 580, 581 , 947 A.2d 710, 711 (2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Heyward, D.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1097 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Robinson, 596 Pa. 580, 581 , 947 A.2d 710, 711 (2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Rogers, R.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(B); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (per curiam order).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Lippert
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 596 Pa. 580 , 947 A.2d 710, 711 (2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Rega
Pa. · 2008 · confidence medium
AND NOW, this 14th day of August, Petitioner’s emergency motion for stay of execution and remand for filing of first, amended, counseled PCRA petition is GRANTED; the PCRA court’s Order dated July 21, 2008, dismissing Movant’s pro se PCRA petition is VACATED, see Commonwealth v. Tedford, 566 Pa. 457 , 781 A.2d 1167 (2001) (holding that, where a post-conviction petitioner files his first petition pro se, he shall be permitted to file an amended petition with the assistance of counsel); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa.2008) (per curiam) (explaining that pertinent criminal p…
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Brown, J.
Pa. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (per curiam) (granting, vacating, and remanding to the PCRA court to allow Robinson the opportunity to amend his petition to correct a defect not cited in the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice). [149 WAL 2023] - 2 Because the Superior Court failed to address the actual basis upon which the PCRA court denied relief with respect to that claim (the reasons provided in the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice), we grant Brown’s petition for allowance of appeal, vacate the Superior Court’s order solely with respect to its resolution of the Brady…
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Derrig, D. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. ____________________________________________ 10 Per curiam orders are not binding precedent.
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Andrews, M.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (concluding that PCRA court did not comply with Rule 905(B) and ____________________________________________ 3 In its opinion, the PCRA court explained that on May 25, 2017, “the law clerk for the [PCRA court] emailed PCRA counsel, with Commonwealth counsel cc’d, to confirm his intent to file an amended PCRA petition and informed the same that he needed to file a motion for leave to file an amended PCRA [petition] pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A)[.]” (PCRA Ct. Op., at 4) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Pander (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 596 Pa. 580 , 947 A.2d 710, 711 (2008) (per curiam order) (opining that it was error to uphold summary dismissal on grounds that petitioner did not include witness certifications from trial counsel where PCRA court did not provide notice of this defect).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Mullarkey, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626, 642 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (“it is improper to affirm a PCRA court's decision on the sole basis of inadequate witness certifications where the PCRA court did not provide notice of the alleged defect.”); see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (per curiam order) (opining that it was error to uphold summary dismissal on grounds that petitioner did not include witness certifications from trial counsel where PCRA court did not provide notice of this defect).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Williams, R.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Pander, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (per curiam). - 14 - J-E02011-14 and we agree with the Commonwealth that these offers of proof are insufficient to warrant a finding of prejudice.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent,
v.
William ROBINSON, Petitioner
Appeal 620 EAL 2007.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 22, 2008.
947 A.2d 710
Per Curiam.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior[*581] Court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the PCRA court for further proceedings. In summarily dismissing the PCRA petition without a hearing, the PCRA court stated only that the petition lacked merit. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, however, the court later stated that dismissal was warranted because, inter alia, no certifications from the potential witnesses were included. In point of fact, witness certifications were included in the pro se petition attached to the counseled petition. Moreover, petitioner was never given an opportunity to attempt to address the procedural defect, as contemplated by Pa.R.Crim.P. 905.

On appeal, the Superior Court panel majority affirmed on different procedural grounds, citing petitioner’s failure to attach a certification from trial counsel. This ground likewise was never cited in the PCRA court’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and petitioner was not given an opportunity to address the supposed procedural deficiency.

A request for an evidentiary hearing must include a certification, signed by the petitioner, as to each intended witness, identifying the witness’s name, address, date of birth, the expected substance of his or her testimony, and any documents material to that testimony. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1). Failure to substantially comply with this requirement will render the proposed witness’s testimony inadmissible. Id.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 905 is intended to provide petitioners with a legitimate opportunity to present their claims to the PCRA court, in a manner sufficient to avoid dismissal due to a correctable defect in pleading or presentation. E.g. Commonwealth v. McGill, 574 Pa. 574, 832 A.2d 1014, 1024 (2003). Thus, when a PCRA court is presented with a PCRA petition that is defective in form or content, the judge should indicate to the petitioner the nature of the defects and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to amend. Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(B) cmt.; Commonwealth v. Rush, 576 Pa. 3, 838 A.2d 651 (2003).

The Superior Court panel majority affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hear[*582] ing, and the subsequent dismissal of his PCRA petition, solely on the grounds that petitioner failed to include a certification concerning the testimony that trial counsel would offer at the PCRA hearing. Assuming, without deciding, that such a certification is required respecting former counsel, this deficiency was not the basis of the PCRA court’s decision, nor was it identified to petitioner at a point where he could have sought to amend his pleadings.

Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court affirming the summary dismissal of petitioner’s PCRA petition is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the PCRA court to allow petitioner an opportunity to amend his pleadings.