green
Positive treatment
Issue: remanded hearingPA ↗
Issue: defective claimPA ↗
Issue: direct appeal claimPA ↗
Issue: structural errorPA ↗
40.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Zalenski, S.
These arguments suggest that Zalenski’s claim is that he acted pro se without an adequate waiver of his right to counsel. ____________________________________________ 5 However, Rule 121 “goes farther than what the United States Constitution requires” as “a technically-deficient waiver of counsel colloquy is not the same as a constitutionally deficient waiver of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 746 (Pa. Super. 2018). 6 The entitlement to counsel with respect to the contempt charge is statutory.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Otero-Velez, D.
Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). - 10 -
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hernandez, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Further, we note that “[w]e may affirm the decision of the PCRA court if there is any basis on the record . . . this is so even if we rely on a different basis in our decision to affirm.” Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2018). 4 Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted.” PA CONST Art. 1, § 13. 5 The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. C…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
TORRES-OLAN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Torres-Olan, 290 A.3d 60 , at *3 (quoting Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 738-39 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal citation omitted)).!!
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shower, T., Jr.
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 249 A.3d 1190 , 1193 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021); Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2018). - 13 - J-S12032-23 the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, were sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Torres-Olan, S.
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 738-39 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jones, W.
Appellate counsel may strategically decide to not pursue weaker claims “in favor of pursuing claims that counsel believes offer a better chance of relief.” Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740-41 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Davis, K.
We are mindful that this Court “may affirm the decision of the PCRA court if there is any basis on the record . . . even if we rely on a different basis in our decision to affirm.” Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa.Super. 2018) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136, 145 (Pa. 2018) (“[T]his Court may affirm a valid judgment or order on any reason appearing as of record.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Gambrel, W.
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 249 A.3d 1190 , 1193 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021); Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2018). - 10 - J-S38040-21 5-9.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Maze, B.
Hearing, 2/23/18, at 15. 3 In Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 738 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied 208 A.3d 458 (Pa. 2019), a panel of this Court remanded for a hearing on a PCRA petition where the trial court failed to inform the defendant of the specific statutory maximum sentences for the charged offenses and direct ____________________________________________ 2 The legality of the sentence was not addressed on direct appeal or in this collateral proceeding.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Baldwin, J.
Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations and internal punctuation omitted), appeal denied, 208 A.3d 458 (Pa. 2019).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Gonzalez, L.
Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2018). - 17 - J-S35037-19 with or present an expert on sexually-transmitted diseases, which is an issue the PCRA court permitted to proceed to an evidentiary hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Shaw, A.
See Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740-41 (Pa. Super. 2018) (appellate counsel makes reasonable strategic decision when he winnows out weaker claims in favor of pursuing claims on appeal believed to offer a better chance for relief).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Pukowsky, M.
See Commonwealth v. Pou, 201 A.3d 735, 740-41 (Pa. Super. 2018) (appellate counsel makes reasonable strategic decision when he winnows out weaker claims in favor of pursuing claims on appeal believed to offer a better chance for relief).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Kathleen E. BRADDOCK
v.
Kathleen E. BRADDOCK
No. 73 MAP 2017.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 20, 2019.
201 A.3d 735
Leonard Sosnov, Esq., Bradley Adam Winnick, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, for Defender Association of Philadelphia, Amicus Curiae., Merle L. Ebert Jr., Esq., Courtney Ellen Hair Larue, Esq., Matthew Peter Smith, Esq., Cumberland County District Attorney's Office, Charles John Volkert Jr., Esq., for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant., Todd Michael Mosser, Esq., for Braddock, Kathleen E., Appellee.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
PER CURIAM
AND NOW , this 20th day of February, 2019, the order of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED . See Commonwealth v. Monarch , 200 A.3d 51 (Pa. 2019).