Commonwealth v. Potter, 58 A.3d 752 (Pa. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Potter, 58 A.3d 752 (Pa. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Shaw, A. (pa, 2021-03-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Shaw, A.
Pa. · 2021 · confidence medium
See id. at 174 , 971 A.2d at 1167 (“[T]he notion that there must be some formalized, PCRA-like procedure for vindication of claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness, if taken 6 Henkel, 90 A.3d at 20 (citing Commonwealth v. Jette, 611 Pa. 166 , 186 n.14, 23 A.3d 1032 , 1044 n.14 (2011); Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410 , 432 n.17, 16 A.3d 484 , 497 n.17 (2011); Commonwealth v. Pitts, 603 Pa. 1 , 9 n.4, 981 A.2d 875 , 880 n.4 (2009); Commonwealth v. Colavita, 606 Pa. 1 , 32 n.12, 993 A.2d 874 , 893 n.12 (2009); Commonwealth v. Ligons, 601 Pa. 103, 126-31 , 971 A.2d 1125, 1138-41 (2009) (plurali…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Rigg
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ford, supra at 1200-1201 ("a majority of the Supreme Court agrees that issues of PCRA counsel effectiveness must be raised in a serial PCRA petition or in response to a notice of dismissal before the PCRA court.”); see also Commonwealth v. Jette, 611 Pa. 166 , 23 A.3d 1032 , 1044 n. 14 (2011); Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410 , 16 A.3d 484 , 497 n. 17 (2011); id. at 498 (Saylor, J. dissenting); Commonwealth v. Paddy, 609 Pa. 272 , 15 A.3d 431, 479 (2011) (Saylor, J. concurring and dissenting) ("a majority of the Court now appears to be suggesting that there effectively can be no state-level…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Michael Alphonse POTTER
No. 188 MAL 2012.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Dec 27, 2012.
58 A.3d 752
2012 WL 6720536
2012 Pa. LEXIS 2967
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 29%

[*753] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of December 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED and the Order of the Superior Court is VACATED. The Superior Court vacated and remanded the dismissal order of the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)[1] court premised upon a claim of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness that was not raised in the PCRA court, without passing on respondent’s other issues. In so doing, the panel did not account for Commonwealth v. Pitts, 603 Pa. 1, 981 A.2d 875, 880 n. 4 (2009) and its progeny. In Pitts, this Court held that:

Pitts’s failure, prior to his PCRA appeal, to argue PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness ... results in waiver of the issue of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness. Pitts’s attempt to obtain review, on collateral appeal, of an issue not raised in the proceedings below amounts to a serial PCRA petition on PCRA appeal. Although Pitts asserts his PCRA appeal was the first opportunity he had to challenge PCRA counsel’s stewardship because he was no longer represented by PCRA counsel, he could have challenged PCRA counsel’s stewardship after receiving counsel’s withdrawal letter and the notice of the PCRA court’s intent to dismiss his petition pursuant to Pa. R.Crim.P. 907, yet he failed to do so. Thus, the issue of whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the direct appeal issue was waived, and the Superior Court' should not have reached it.

Pitts, 981 A.2d at 880, n. 4 (Pa.2009). See also Commonwealth v. Colavita, 606 Pa. 1, 993 A.2d 874, 893 n. 12 (2010) (“Moreover, claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time at the direct appeal level, much less at the discretionary appeal level.”) (citing Pitts).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of the above precedent and for appropriate disposition.