Duboise, R. v. Smith, K., 235 A.3d 1124 (Pa. 2020). · Go Syfert
Search
Duboise, R. v. Smith, K., 235 A.3d 1124 (Pa. 2020). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
307 citation events (307 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Montanez, J., No. 2612 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 27, 2022)
Treatment trajectory · 2020 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2020 2023 2026
Under fire: who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case, and citations using reconsideration language. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Reconsideration language Commonwealth v. Osman, M., No. 81 MAP 2024 (Pa. July 21, 2026)
“Although we are not barred from reconsidering our precedent, we do so only when there is a “special justification” that exists “over and above the belief that the precedent was wrongly decided—in matters involving statutory, as opposed to constitutional, construction.” Yoder v. McCarthy Construction, Inc., 345 A.3d 668 , 681 (Pa., 2025) (quoting [J-85-2025] - 21 Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d…”
Reconsideration language Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., 345 A.3d 668 (Pa. 2025)
“This Court has also recognized that overruling precedent “demands a special justification—over and above the belief that the precedent was wrongly decided—in matters involving statutory, as opposed to constitutional, construction.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1168 (Pa. 2020).”
Reconsideration language Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., 345 A.3d 668 (Pa. 2025)
“Majority Opinion at 16 (citing Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1168 (Pa. 2020).”
Reconsideration language Commonwealth v. Alexander, K., 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020)
“In that spirit, “we have recognized that changing course demands a special justification — over and above the belief that [a] precedent was wrongly decided[.]” Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1168 (Pa. 2020).”
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1154 Affirming order regarding untimely petition jurisdiction7 citing casesstating that, by use of the words “has been held” and “that court” in Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized [as applicable with retroactive force] at the time the petition was filed2 citing courts put it this way
  • Com. v. Davis, S., No. 2728 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 28, 2026).unpublished
    Therefore, Appellant cannot now claim that he was unaware of the fact that, by entering a guilty plea, he could affect his immigration status. -9- [Section 9545]”; and (2) “the right has been held by that court to apply retroactively.” Rei…
  • Com. v. Lucas, D., No. 1484 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 26, 2026).unpublished
    (stating that, by use of the words “has been held” and “that court” in Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized [as applicable with retroactive force] at the time t…)
  • Com. v. Branthafer, A., 315 A.3d 113, 2024 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).published 26 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1168 (rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infi…
  • Com. v. Andrews, M., No. 519 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 29, 2023).unpublished
    Reid, supra at 1154 (cleaned up).
  • Com. v. Bumbarger, D., No. 1206 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 22, 2023).unpublished
    See Whorton, 549 U.S. at 416; Reid, 235 A.3d at 1154.
  • Com. v. Cook, W., No. 290 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2021).unpublished 6 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1153 (citation omitted).
  • Com. v. McNair, A., No. 810 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 18, 2025).unpublished
At page 1143 Affirming the order of the commonwealth court6 citing casesstating that “it is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a PCRA petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the Commonwealth has not separately appealed” from the order granting relief2 citing courts put it this way
  • Com. v. Branthafer, A., 315 A.3d 113, 2024 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).published 26 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1168 (rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infi…
  • Com. v. McCollum, S., No. 1307 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2022).unpublished
    ([I]t is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a PCRA petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the Commonwealth has not separately appeale…)
  • Com. v. Cook, W., No. 290 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2021).unpublished 6 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1153 (citation omitted).
  • Com. v. Rivera, J., No. 1310 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 6, 2021).unpublished
    Therefore, neither the PCRA court nor this Court “has legal authority to address the substantive claims.” Reid, 235 A.3d at 1143.
  • Com. v. Hoffman, B., No. 195 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2021).unpublished 2 cites
    Consequently, “neither this Court nor the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition.”18 See Reid, 235 A.3d at 1143; see also Sanchez, 204 A.3d at 526 .
  • Com. v. Ragan, D., No. 507 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2021).unpublished
At page 1146 Affirming the lower court's order on appeal6 citing casesstating that a judicial determination does not constitute a “new fact” for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)1 citing court put it this way
  • Com. v. Knox, D., No. 315 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2025).unpublished 2 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1144, citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
  • Com. v. McNeil, I., No. 644 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2024).unpublished 2 cites
    However, “[t]he events that prompted the analysis, which must be established by presumption or ____________________________________________ applies only to claims arising one year before the effective date of this section, December 24, 201…
  • Com. v. Rogers, E., No. 518 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 26, 2024).unpublished 4 cites
    However, “[t]he events that prompted the analysis, which must be established by presumption or evidence, are regarded as fact.” Reid, 235 A.3d at 1146 (citations omitted and formatting altered). “[S]ubsequent decisional law does not amount…
  • Com. v. Coolbaugh, S., No. 1668 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 21, 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1146 (Pa. 2020) (citations omitted and formatting altered). “[S]ubsequent decisional law does not amount to a new fact under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.” Id. at 1147 (citation omitted and forma…
  • Com. v. Davis, A., No. 1206 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 16, 2021).unpublished 2 cites
    Our Supreme Court recently held that a judicial decision does not constitute a “fact” for purposes of the newly-discovered facts exception.15 Reid, 235 A.3d at 1146.
  • Com. v. Montanez, No. 2154 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 18, 2024).unpublished
At page 1148 Affirming the lower court's order on appeal6 citing casesneither the Williams decision itself nor the legal conclusions contained therein constitute a new fact1 citing court put it this way
At page 1140 Affirming the order of the commonwealth court4 citing casesWithout jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.1 citing court put it this way
  • Com. v. Montanez, J., No. 2612 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 27, 2022).unpublished
    (Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.)
  • Com. v. Cook, W., No. 290 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2021).unpublished 6 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1153 (citation omitted).
  • Com. v. Ragan, D., No. 507 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2021).unpublished
  • Com. v. Williams, D., No. 640 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 7, 2021).unpublished
At page 1144 Affirming the order of the commonwealth court4 citing cases
  • Com. v. Knox, D., No. 315 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2025).unpublished 2 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1144, citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
  • Com. v. Branthafer, A., 315 A.3d 113, 2024 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).published 26 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1168 (rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infi…
  • Com. v. Robinson, H., No. 1515 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 12, 2023).unpublished
    “The PCRA petitioner bears the burden of proving the applicability of one of the exceptions.” Reid, supra at 1144 (citation omitted).
  • Com. v. Ragan, D., No. 507 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2021).unpublished
At page 1147 Affirming the lower court's order on appeal4 citing casesreiterating the well-established principal that a judicial decision does not constitute a “fact” for purposes of the newly-discovered facts exception1 citing court put it this way
  • Com. v. McNeil, I., No. 644 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2024).unpublished 2 cites
    However, “[t]he events that prompted the analysis, which must be established by presumption or ____________________________________________ applies only to claims arising one year before the effective date of this section, December 24, 201…
  • Com. v. Rogers, E., No. 518 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 26, 2024).unpublished 4 cites
    However, “[t]he events that prompted the analysis, which must be established by presumption or evidence, are regarded as fact.” Reid, 235 A.3d at 1146 (citations omitted and formatting altered). “[S]ubsequent decisional law does not amount…
  • Com. v. Coolbaugh, S., No. 1668 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 21, 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1146 (Pa. 2020) (citations omitted and formatting altered). “[S]ubsequent decisional law does not amount to a new fact under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.” Id. at 1147 (citation omitted and forma…
  • Com. v. Freeman, C., No. 1228 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2023).unpublished
The timeliness of an appeal … [goes] to the jurisdiction of [an appellate c]ourt and its competency to act.” (citation omitted)no pin page on record · 3 citing cases listed
  • Com. v. Pressley, J., No. 1882 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 21, 2026).unpublished
    (The timeliness of an appeal … [goes] to the jurisdiction of [an appellate c]ourt and its competency to act.” (citation omitted))
  • Com. v. Battle, D., No. 1242 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 4, 2026).unpublished
    (The timeliness of an appeal … [goes] to the jurisdiction of [an appellate] Court and its competency to act.” (citation omitted))
  • Com. v. Williams, C., No. 382 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2026).unpublished
    (The timeliness of an appeal … [goes] to the jurisdiction of [an appellate c]ourt and its competency to act.” (citation omitted))
At page 1131 Affirming the lower court's order per curiam3 citing casescorroborating this procedural posture1 citing court put it this way
  • Commonwealth v. Taylor, P., 283 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2022).published 3 cites
    (corroborating this procedural posture)
  • Com. v. Cook, W., No. 290 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2021).unpublished 6 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1153 (citation omitted).
  • Com. v. Ragan, D., No. 507 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2021).unpublished
At page 1160 Affirming the order of the commonwealth court3 citing cases
  • Com. v. Johnson, M., 2026 PA Super 32.published
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1160-61 (emphasis in original).
  • Com. v. Jackson, M., No. 522 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 31, 2024).unpublished
    Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 1160-61 (Pa. 2020) (emphasis in original).
  • Commonwealth v. Taylor, P., 283 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2022).published 3 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1160-61 (emphasis in original).
[T]o confirm proper jurisdiction, it is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a PCRA petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the Commonwealth has not separately appealed . . . from the order granting relief.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • Com. v. Rugani, R., No. 1445 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 27, 2024).unpublished
    ([T]o confirm proper jurisdiction, it is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a PCRA petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the Commonw…)
  • Com. v. Neal, C., No. 720 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2021).unpublished
    ([T]o confirm proper jurisdiction, it is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a PCRA petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the Commonw…)
As we have related quite a few times, subsequent decisional law does not amount to a new ‘fact’ under [S]ection 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • Com. v. Strum, A., No. 173 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2021).unpublished
    (As we have related quite a few times, subsequent decisional law does not amount to a new ‘fact’ under [S]ection 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.)
  • Com. v. Mines, K., No. 465 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2021).unpublished
    (As we have related quite a few times, subsequent decisional law does not amount to a new ‘fact’ under [S]ection 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.)
It is elementary that unless the United States Supreme Court reverses a decision of [the Pennsylvania Supreme] Court, or th[at] Court overrules its own prior decision, the law emanating from the decision remains law.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • In the Int. of: W.T.H., Appeal of: W.T.H., 258 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).unpublished
    (It is elementary that unless the United States Supreme Court reverses a decision of [the Pennsylvania Supreme] Court, or th[at] Court overrules its own prior decision, the law emanating from the decision remains law.)
  • Com. v. Lewis, J., No. 2616 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 8, 2021).unpublished
    (It is elementary that unless the United States Supreme Court reverses a decision of this Court, or th[e Pennsylvania Supreme] Court overrules its own prior decision, ‘the law emanating from the decision remains law.’)
At page 1168 rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infirm2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Com. v. Byers Augusta, W., No. 1292 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 24, 2026).unpublished
    To the extent Appellant also relies on the dissent in Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124, 1168-69 (Pa. 2020), as support for his governmental interference analysis, that reliance is misplaced, as a dissenting opinion is not controlling au…
  • Com. v. Branthafer, A., 315 A.3d 113, 2024 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).published 26 cites
    (rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infirm)
At page 1149 cited at this page1 citing case
At page 1153 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Com. v. Cook, W., No. 290 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2021).unpublished 6 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1153 (citation omitted).
At page 1155 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Com. v. Frame, G., 244 A.3d 8, 2020 PA Super 283 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).published 2 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1155-56. -7- As Reid controls the issue before us, we apply its rationale to uphold the PCRA court’s determination that Appellant’s untimely petition fails to invoke an exception to the PCRA time bar.
At page 1156 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Com. v. McDonald, R., No. 2624 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 2026).unpublished
    See Reid, 235 A.3d at 1156; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a); see also Commonwealth v. Bracey, 795 A.2d 935 , 939 n.2 (Pa. 2001) (observing that “a petitioner cannot obtain post-conviction review of claims previously litigated on appeal by alleging…
At page 1159 stating, “[i]t is elementary that unless the United States Supreme Court reverses a decision of [our Supreme Court], or [our Supreme Court] overrules its prior decision, the law emanating from the decision remains law” (citation and original quotation marks omitted)1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Com. v. Branthafer, A., 315 A.3d 113, 2024 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).published 26 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1168 (rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infi…
At page 1162 defining “procedural rules” as rules “designed to enhance the accuracy of a conviction or sentence by regulating the manner of determining the defendant's culpability” (citation and original quotation marks omitted)1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Com. v. Branthafer, A., 315 A.3d 113, 2024 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).published 26 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1168 (rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infi…
At page 1167 collecting cases that have held to the principles that the PCRA time limitation is jurisdictional in nature and constitutional1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Com. v. Branthafer, A., 315 A.3d 113, 2024 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).published 26 cites
    Reid, 235 A.3d at 1168 (rejecting the argument that a court’s inability to afford a petitioner relief based on lack of jurisdiction means the PCRA failed to afford sufficient due process and the statute is, therefore, constitutionally infi…
At page 1171 cited at this page1 citing case
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“to confirm proper jurisdiction, it is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a pcra petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the commonwealth has not separately appealed . . . from the order granting relief.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Com. v. Rugani, R., No. 1445 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 27, 2024).unpublished
    “to confirm proper jurisdiction, it is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a pcra petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the commonweal…”
  • Com. v. Neal, C., No. 720 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2021).unpublished
    “to confirm proper jurisdiction, it is appropriate for an appellate court to consider sua sponte the timeliness of a pcra petition from which nunc pro tunc appellate rights have been reinstated, even where the commonweal…”
“as we have related quite a few times, subsequent decisional law does not amount to a new 'fact' under section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the pcra.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Com. v. Strum, A., No. 173 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2021).unpublished
    “as we have related quite a few times, subsequent decisional law does not amount to a new 'fact' under section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the pcra.”
  • Com. v. Mines, K., No. 465 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2021).unpublished
    “as we have related quite a few times, subsequent decisional law does not amount to a new 'fact' under section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the pcra.”
“it is elementary that unless the united states supreme court reverses a decision of the pennsylvania supreme court, or that court overrules its own prior decision, the law emanating from the decision remains law.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • In the Int. of: W.T.H., Appeal of: W.T.H., 258 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).unpublished
    “it is elementary that unless the united states supreme court reverses a decision of the pennsylvania supreme court, or that court overrules its own prior decision, the law emanating from the decision remains law.”
  • Com. v. Lewis, J., No. 2616 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 8, 2021).unpublished
    “it is elementary that unless the united states supreme court reverses a decision of this court, or the pennsylvania supreme court overrules its own prior decision, 'the law emanating from the decision remains law.”
Other citing cases12 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 2 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Duboise, R., Aplt.
v.
Smith, K.
7 EAP 2020.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Aug 18, 2020.
Published opinion
✓ 235 A.3d 1124 gap-fill: Leagle volume listing
Published
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
RYAN DUBOISE,Appellantv.KIMBERLY SMITH, KERI MOORE ANDBOB RUMCIK,Appellees
No. 7 EAP 2020Appeal from the Order entered onDecember 16, 2019, exited onDecember 17, 2019, in theCommonwealth Court at No. 465 MD2019.
ORDER
[*~1124–1127]

PER CURIAM DECIDED: August 18, 2020

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2020, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.