record and without legal error in Pennsylvania

2024When we review the denial of PCRA relief, we inquire whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.34 Our review over questions of law is de novo.35 Our “scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court’s hearing, viewed in the light most favorable 34 Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013). 35 Id. [J-74-2024] - 19 to the prevailing party . . . .”36 The petitioner bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is eligible for PCRA relief.37 We agree

2024When we review the denial of PCRA relief, we inquire whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.34 Our review over questions of law is de novo.35 Our “scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court’s hearing, viewed in the light most favorable 34 Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013). 35 Id. [J-74-2024] - 19 to the prevailing party . . . .”36 The petitioner bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is eligible for PCRA relief.37 We agree

2022Under this exception, the time-bar will not preclude relief if “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ____________________________________________ 1 “On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). “[Our] scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favo

2021The appeal at 969 EDA 2020 was dismissed by this Court as duplicative of the present, timely appeal at 970 EDA 2020. 3 Appellant has abandoned this issue on appeal. -4- J-S02013-21 [Turner/]Finley letter against counsel’s own amended PCRA petition[,] effectively acting as an attorney for the prosecution?” Appellant’s Brief at 3.4 Preliminarily, we observe that, “[o]n appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (

2022Appellant’s Brief at 2 (suggested answer omitted). -3- J-S37039-21 Initially, as a general proposition, we note “[o]ur standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is clear; we are limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quotation marks and quotation omitted).

2021Initially, as a general proposition, we note “[o]ur standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is clear; we are limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quotation marks and quotation omitted). -5- J-S16037-21 Further, inasmuch as Appellant’s claims present allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we apply the following well-established legal principles: In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of

2017“On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). “[Our] scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA court level.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). “[T]his Court applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal concl

2017“On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). “[Our] scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA court level.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). “[T]his Court applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal concl

2024When reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, an appellate court “is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d at 1267 .

2022See Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 4 “On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1267 (Pa. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 916 (2008) (citation omitted).

2018In Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme Court stated: Our standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is clear: we are “limited to determining whether the PCRA court's findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248, 1251 (Pa. 2006).

2018In Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme Court stated: Our standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is clear: we are “limited to determining whether the PCRA court's findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” ____________________________________________ 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). -2- J-A04015-18 Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248, 1251 (Pa. 2006).

2022On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, “our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2021The standard of review for the denial of a PCRA petition is well settled: “On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2017“Furthermore, we note that we are bound by the PCRA court’s credibility determinations where there is record support for those determinations.” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682, 694 (Pa. 2004) (citation omitted).

2017“Furthermore, we note that we are bound by the PCRA court’s credibility determinations where there is record support for those determinations.” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682, 694 (Pa. 2004).

2017See Commonwealth v. Wright, 599 Pa. 270 , 961 A.2d 119, 148 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2017See Commonwealth v. Wright, 599 Pa. 270 , 961 A.2d 119, 148 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2019“The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).

2018“The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).

2016We will not entertain a second or subsequent request for PCRA relief unless the petitioner makes a strong prima facie showing that a miscarriage of -5 J-S74002-16 justice may have occurred." Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 719 (Pa. 2008).

2016We will not entertain a second or subsequent request for PCRA relief unless the petitioner makes a strong prima facie showing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 719 (Pa. 2008).

2022See Brief of Appellant, at 3-4 (reordered and reworded for clarity and ease of disposition). ____________________________________________ 1Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). -2- J-S17024-22 We begin by noting our scope and standard or review: On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.

2018Preliminarily, we note “[o]ur standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is clear; we are limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 2 This Court has not been provided with the February 26, 2016, order; however, the certified docket entries contain an entry indicating the PCRA court entered an order on this date “relieving” counsel pu

2024In seeking to demonstrate eligibility for relief under the PCRA, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, who must make this showing by a preponderance of the evidence.38 For a claim of after-discovered evidence, the petitioner must show that the conviction “resulted from . . . [t]he unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.”39 In order to prevail under Section 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner must prove that the after-discovered evidence: (1) could not have been obt

2024In seeking to demonstrate eligibility for relief under the PCRA, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, who must make this showing by a preponderance of the evidence.38 For a claim of after-discovered evidence, the petitioner must show that the conviction “resulted from . . . [t]he unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.”39 In order to prevail under Section 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner must prove that the after-discovered evidence: (1) could not have been obt

2024In seeking to demonstrate eligibility for relief under the PCRA, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, who must make this showing by a preponderance of the evidence.38 For a claim of after-discovered evidence, the petitioner must show that the conviction “resulted from . . . [t]he unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.”39 In order to prevail under Section 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner must prove that the after-discovered evidence: (1) could not have been obt

2024In seeking to demonstrate eligibility for relief under the PCRA, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, who must make this showing by a preponderance of the evidence.38 For a claim of after-discovered evidence, the petitioner must show that the conviction “resulted from . . . [t]he unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.”39 In order to prevail under Section 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner must prove that the after-discovered evidence: (1) could not have been obt

2021“We must accord great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they have no support in the record.” Commonwealth v. Scassera, 965 A.2d 247, 249 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2021Because this requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, no court may properly disregard or alter them in order to reach the merits of the claims raised in a ____________________________________________ 3 “On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error." Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013). “[Our] scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the

2018Order affirmed. ____________________________________________ 1The “prisoner mail-box rule” provides that when a prisoner is proceeding pro se, and files an appeal by mail, the notice of appeal is deemed filed “on the date that the appellant deposits the appeal with prison authorities and/or places it in the prison mailbox.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997).