green
Positive treatment
Trending · 68 recent citers
Issue: charges results waiverPA ↗
Issue: statute of limitations defensePA ↗
Issue: Riley claimPA ↗
Issue: Allen instructionPA ↗
Quoted verbatim 6×
73.5 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2018–2025 · 3 courts ·
…where the property owner is the criminal defendant, and had an opportunity to move for the return of property during the thirty days following disposition of the charges, while the trial court had jurisdiction.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 7× by 6 distinct cases, 2017–2023 · 3 courts ·
…a return motion is timely when it is filed by an accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.
at p. 716
⚠ not in text
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, 2020–2023 · 2 courts ·
…failure to file a return motion during the pendency of the criminal charges against him or within thirty days following dismissal of the charges results in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone return petition.
at p. 718
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re: Smith, A.; Appeal of: Smith, A.
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
failure to file a return motion during the pendency of criminal charges . . . or within thirty days following dismissal of the charges results in waiver
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re: Smith, A.; Appeal of: Smith, A.
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
failure to file a return motion during the pendency of criminal charges . . . or within thirty days following dismissal of the charges results in waiver
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Miller, R., Jr.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
appellee's failure to file a return motion during the pendency of the criminal charges against him or within thirty days following dismissal of the charges results in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone petition. in this regard setzer. . . remains valid
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Latimer, A.
pursuant to rule 588, . . . a return motion is timely when it is filed . . . while the court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Irland, J (Semi-Auto Pistol)
(9×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
a return motion is timely when it is filed by an accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: Grant, J., Appeal of: Grant, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
allen ii
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Drummond, S.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Allen, 107 A.3d at 717 (requiring that a motion for return of property to be submitted while the trial court retains jurisdiction, i.e., within 30 days after the disposition of the criminal matter).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Henderson, P.
Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577, 589-90 , 107 A.3d 709, 716-17 (2014) (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) (holding that appellee’s failure to file motion for return of property during pendency of criminal charges against him or within 30 days following withdrawal of charges results in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone motion for return of property).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bender-Mathis, S.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577, 589-90 , 107 A.3d 709, 716-17 (2014) (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) (holding that appellee’s failure to file motion for return of property during pendency of criminal charges against him or within 30 days following withdrawal of charges results in waiver, precluding review of his motion for return of property).4 Instantly, the Commonwealth withdrew the charges against Appellant on January 4, 2023.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kapellusch, D.
“The Rules of Criminal Procedure are to ‘be construed in consonance with the rules of statutory construction[.]’” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 716 (Pa. 2014) (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 101(C)).10 “The object of all ____________________________________________ 10 We observe Section 1932 of the Statutory Construction Act provides: “Statutes that relate to the same class of persons or things are in pari materia” and “shall be construed together, if possible, as one….” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1932(a), (b). - 13 - J-A18030-24 interpretation and construction of rules is to ascertain an…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Trent, A.
Our Supreme Court, in the case of Commonwealth v. Allen, construed the language of Rule 588 and held that “a petition for the return of property is timely when it is filed by the accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Setzer, 392 A.2d 772 (Pa. Super. 1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stiver, J.
Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577, 589-90 , 107 A.3d 709, 716-17 (2014) (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) (holding that appellee’s failure to file motion for return of property during pendency of criminal charges against him or within 30 days following withdrawal of charges results in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone motion for return of property).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Tisdale, D., Appeal of: Tisdale, D.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577, 589-90 , 107 A.3d 709, 716-17 (2014) (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) (holding that appellee’s failure to file motion for return of property during pendency of criminal charges against him or within 30 days following withdrawal of charges results in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone motion for return of property).3 Instantly, the Commonwealth withdrew the charges against Appellant on August 23, 2022.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Guru Nanak Sikh v. Northampton Co. DA's Office
“The Rules of Criminal Procedure are to ‘be construed in consonance with the rules of statutory construction,’ Pa.R.Crim.P. 101(C), which requires us to interpret the provisions in accord with the plain meaning of their terms.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 716 (Pa. 2014) (brackets omitted). ____________________________________________ 2 “[B]oth this Court and the Commonwealth Court have jurisdiction to decide an appeal involving a motion for the return of property filed pursuant to [Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 588.” Commonwealth v. Durham, 9 A.3d 641 , 642 n.1 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Welsh, D.
Our Supreme Court has held that where, as here, “the party filing the return motion was also a party to the underlying criminal proceeding,” then his “failure to file a return motion during the pendency of the criminal charges against him or within thirty days following dismissal of the charges results in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone return petition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 718 (Pa. 2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Beal, J.
Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577, 589 , 107 A.3d 709, 716-17 (2014) (internal footnotes omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES
Washington’s second motion was allegedly denied pursuant to Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014), which held that “[a] Defendant must file this type of motion in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition of his criminal case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
M. Green v. PSP
Cf. Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 716 (Pa. 2014) (“Rule 588 . . . is sufficiently precise with regard to who may file a return motion and where the motion must be filed . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Caviness, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
S31035/20 its disposition of the criminal case.” Rodriguez, 172 A.3d at 1164 n.10, citing Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (holding that Allen’s failure to file a motion for return of property during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him or within 30 days following dismissal of the charges resulted in waiver of the issue, thereby precluding review of his stand-alone return petition); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Caviness, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
S31035/20 its disposition of the criminal case.” Rodriguez, 172 A.3d at 1164 n.10, citing Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (holding that Allen’s failure to file a motion for return of property during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him or within 30 days following dismissal of the charges resulted in waiver of the issue, thereby precluding review of his stand-alone return petition); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Richardson, L.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
We have explained: “[A] return motion is timely when it is filed by an accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 (providing that a trial - 11 - J-S26014-20 court retains jurisdiction to modify or rescind any order within thirty days of its entry, if no appeal is taken)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SPEROW v. BERKS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Ct. 2018) (holding that six-year statute of limitations applies to petition for the return of property seized by police where movant was not a party to the related criminal proceedings) with Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (holding that a criminal defendant who fails to move for the return of property related to a criminal prosecution during the pendency of a criminal proceeding or within 30 days of its termination has waived the issue).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Frey, D.
Regarding the timeliness of a motion for return of property filed pursuant to Rule 588 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Court has recently summarized: “[A] return motion is timely when it is filed by an accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577 , 107 A.3d 709, 717 (2014) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 (providing that a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify or rescind any order within thirty days of its entry, if no appeal is taken)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Gines, A.
“This issue is purely a question of law; accordingly, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 714 (Pa. 2014).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. of PA v. R. Berrien, III
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The Superior Court ultimately quashed the appeal in Commonwealth v. Berrien (Pa. Super., No. 2059 EDA 2018, filed October 1, 2019). 6 The trial court’s order denying the petition stated, in relevant part: A criminal defendant who claims ownership of seized property by filing a motion for return of property must file that motion “in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” [Commonwealth] v. Allen, [ 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Baatz, J.
Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 716-717 (Pa. 2014) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. of PA v. S.A. Voneida ~ Appeal of: K. Voneida
Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 718 (Pa. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lashley, M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 174 A.3d 670 , 674 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2017). -4- J-A26005-19 disposition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jones, S.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Therefore, “our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 714 (Pa. 2014).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mitchell, E., Jr.
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Therefore, “our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 714 (Pa. 2014) (italics added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Linton, L.
Our Supreme Court, in the case of Commonwealth v. Allen, construed the language of Rule 588 and held that “a petition for the return of property is timely when it is filed by the accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Setzer, 392 A.2d 772 (Pa. Super. 1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez
We note that ”[p]ursuant to [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 588,.. .a return motion is timely when it is filed by an accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577 , 107 A.3d 709, 717 (2014) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 (providing that a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify or rescind any order within thirty days of its entry, if no appeal has been taken)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. A. Porter
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 714 (Pa. 2014). 3 allegedly fraudulent evidence that was never introduced during any court proceeding.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pometti, F.
Based on our disposition, application of the prisoner mailbox rule does not entitle Appellant to relief. -4- J-S46004-17 in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” Id. at 717 (emphasis added) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify or rescind any order within thirty days of its entry, if no appeal has been taken)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Austin, M.
Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 711 (Pa. 2014). 7 In addition to seeking an order compelling production of a certified copy of his sentencing order, Appellant also requests that this Court “arrest judgment” and direct the trial court to schedule a sentencing hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Wendel
It is well-settled that “[t]he Rules of Criminal Procedure are to ‘be construed in consonance with the rulés of statutory construction[,]’ Pa.R.Crim.P. 101(C), which requires us to interpret the provisions in accord with the plain meaning of their terms.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 630 Pa. 577 , 107 A.3d 709, 716 (2014) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.M. Barren v. PSP, Trooper Wesley Berkebile
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 718.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Laverde, K., Nestor, A.
Even if the Superior Court were to disregard the untimeliness of the motion and consider its merits, the trial court asserts that the issue presented is moot, and thus it did not err in denying 26 Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 716-717 (Pa. 20!4) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (providing that a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify or rescind an order within thirty days of its entry, ifno appeal has been taken)). 27 Commonwealth v. Romberger, 414 Pa. 190, 196 , 378 A.2d 283, 286 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. LaBrake
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
It held that this Court erred by relying “on a statute of limitations analysis to resolve the timeliness” of the motion; it concluded, instead, “that [Allen’s] failure to file a return motion during the pendency of the criminal charges against him or within thirty days following dismissal of the charges resulted] in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone return petition.” Commonwealth v. Allen, — Pa. —, 107 A.3d 709, 718 (2014) (Allen II). 6 On June 3, 2015, the Supreme Court issued the following per curiam order in the case sub judice: AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2015, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
M. Morgalo v. S. Gorniak (SCI Albion Accountant) v. Montgomery County Clerk of Courts
In its review of this Court’s Allen decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “rejected] the Commonwealth Court's reliance on a statute of limitations analysis to resolve the timeliness of [the ajppellee’s return motion[.]" Allen, 107 A.3d at 718.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. O. Riley
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709 (Pa. 2014) (failure to file motion or return of property during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against 2 him or within thirty days following the dismissal of the charges results in waiver).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. McNulty, J.
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 714 (Pa. 2014) (citing Ash v. Cont’l Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. of PA v. R. Berrien, III
(2×)
See Allen, 107 A.3d at 718 .”).6 6 As the Superior Court observed: (Footnote continued on next page…) 5 Based on the foregoing, because the instant petition was filed more than 30 days following the entry of the judgment of sentence in Berrien’s criminal case, he waived any claim for the return of his seized property under Pa.R.Crim.P. 588, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Green, M., Appeal of: Green, M.
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 714 (Pa. 2014). ____________________________________________ 3 On April 1, 2022, the trial court ordered Green to file a Rule 1925(b) statement by April 22, 2022.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Constantini, D.
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014) (stating that “[p]ursuant to Rule 588, … a return motion is timely when it is filed by an accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after disposition.” (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505)); accord Commonwealth v. Setzer, 392 A.2d 772 (Pa. Super. 1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Geiger, F.
See -5- J-S09014-19 Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (Pa. 2014).
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Irland, J (Semi-Auto Pistol)
(3×)
See Allen, 107 A.3d at 717 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: T. Frederick Motion for Return of Property -- Appeal of: Commonwealth of PA
(2×)
See Frederick’s Petition for Return of Property at 1. 4 to Frederick.9 See Trial Court Opinion and Order dated June 8, 2017 (Opinion and Order).10 The Commonwealth timely appealed.11, 12 In its appeal, the Commonwealth argues only that, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709 (Pa. 2014), Frederick is barred from filing a petition for return of the firearms in question because, as transferee of the firearms, he now stands in the shoes of McKown, who previously failed to file a timely 9 The trial court granted Frederick’s Petition for Return of Property wholesale and provided that �…
examined
Cited "see"
Com. v. $997.00 ex rel C. Woodard
(3×)
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709 (Pa. 2014).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. T. Cash
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 721-22 (Pa. 2014) (Todd, J., dissenting) (pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §5524(5), an action upon a statute for a forfeiture must be commenced within two years).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DNB FIRST, N.A.
v.
William B. FRETZ Jr., Petitioner DNB First, N.A. v. William B. Fretz Jr.
v.
William B. FRETZ Jr., Petitioner DNB First, N.A. v. William B. Fretz Jr.
Nos. 375 MAL 2014, 376 MAL 2014.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Dec 3, 2014.
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)
ORDER -
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Whether the Superior Court of Pennsylvania erred in deciding under Pa.R.C.P. 2959(c) that Petitioner waived four of the six meritorious defenses put forth on appeal to open/strike a confessed judgment, when those defenses were fleshed out in discovery and included in a court sanctioned supplemental brief?