cognizable PCRA claim in Pennsylvania

2015See Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2007).

2014See Commonwealth v. Judge, 591 Pa. 126 , 916 A.2d 511 (2007).

2019The record demonstrates that trial counsel did make a pre-trial severance motion in this case, which the Court denied after hearing argument.' Moreover, defendant could not make a cognizable PCRA claim that the Court erred in denying his severance motion since that claim could have, but was not, raised on direct_ appeal. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) ("an issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, [or] on appeal"); see Commonwealth v. Lambert, 797 A.2d 232, 240 (Pa. I Because the severance issue involved an ongoing homicide investigation, the Cour

2019Moreover, defendant could not make a cognizable PCRA claim that the Court erred in denying his suppression motion since· that claim could have, but was not, raised on direct appeal. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) ("an issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so . ' before trial, at trial, [or] on appeal"); see Commonwealth v. Lambert, 797 A.2d 232, 240 (Pa. 2001).

2017If the record is devoid of a defendant's request for allocatur, he may still have a cognizable PCRA claim if he proves any issues he sought to take to the Supreme Court "rose 'above frivolity."' Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014)(quoting Connnonwealth v. Bath, 907 A.2d 619, 624 (Pa. Super. 2006)); see also Gadsden, 832 A.2d at l 085-86 (citing Commonwealth v. Liebel, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003)). "(B]ecause the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is generally statutorily precluded from reviewing a defendant's discretionary sentencing claim," see 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9781(£), the Superior

2004Commonwealth v. Liebel, 573 Pa. 375 , 825 A.2d 630 (2003).

2025See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii) (stating that a petitioner may obtain PCRA relief based on “[i]neffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth- determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 (“The action established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis.”); Commonwea

2025See Commonwealth v. Rounsley, 717 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“after a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the only cognizable issues in a post conviction proceeding are the validity of the plea of guilty and the legality of the sentence”); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(iii).

2021Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2010)).

2021See Commonwealth v. Prout, 814 A.2d 693, 696 (Pa. Super. 2002); 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9543(a)(3); 9544(b).

2021Although J.H.F. attempts to frame this as a constitutional challenge to bring it within the purview of the PCRA, a claim that the Commonwealth failed to prove all elements of a crime is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, which is not a cognizable PCRA claim.9 See Commonwealth v. Bell, 706 A.2d 855, 861 (Pa. Super. 1998). ____________________________________________ 8 Similarly, J.H.F. failed to develop this claim in any way before the PCRA court. 9 J.H.F. claims thatI.Z.’s testimony was uncorroborated, which goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.

2018The DOC is an administrative agency bound to follow a trial court’s order granting an inmate credit for time served.” Heredia, 97 A.3d at 395 n.5 (internal citations omitted). -6- J-S48044-18 Additionally, we find no law holding that a trial court’s failure to calculate the amount of credit for time served renders a sentence illegal, as alleged in Appellant’s amended PCRA petition.

2018See id. at 395 (where appellant “wishes the DOC to enforce the trial court’s sentencing order as valid,” he is not challenging the legality of his conviction or sentence and has not raised a cognizable PCRA claim). ____________________________________________ 4 “[T]he text of the sentencing order is determinative of the court’s sentencing intentions and the sentence imposed.

2018See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007).

2017If the record is devoid of a defendant's request for allocatur, he may still have a cognizable PCRA claim if he proves any issues he sought to take to the Supreme Court "rose 'above frivolity."' Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014)(quoting Connnonwealth v. Bath, 907 A.2d 619, 624 (Pa. Super. 2006)); see also Gadsden, 832 A.2d at l 085-86 (citing Commonwealth v. Liebel, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003)). "(B]ecause the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is generally statutorily precluded from reviewing a defendant's discretionary sentencing claim," see 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9781(£), the Superior

2017If the record is devoid of a defendant's request for allocatur, he may still have a cognizable PCRA claim if he proves any issues he sought to take to the Supreme Court "rose 'above frivolity."' Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014)(quoting Connnonwealth v. Bath, 907 A.2d 619, 624 (Pa. Super. 2006)); see also Gadsden, 832 A.2d at l 085-86 (citing Commonwealth v. Liebel, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003)). "(B]ecause the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is generally statutorily precluded from reviewing a defendant's discretionary sentencing claim," see 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9781(£), the Superior

2015See Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638, 640 (Pa. 1998) (“[T]he PCRA subsumes the remedy of habeas corpus with respect to remedies offered (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-S55028-15 January 22, 2015, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing, based on the petition’s untimeliness.

2015See West, supra. The Supreme Court also has held that an allegation that Canada violated the petitioner’s rights under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights was not a cognizable PCRA claim.

2008See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 755 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2000), aff' d, 572 Pa. 477 , 817 A.2d 479 (2003). .

2008See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 755 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2000), aff' d, 572 Pa. 477 , 817 A.2d 479 (2003). .

2008See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 755 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2000), aff' d, 572 Pa. 477 , 817 A.2d 479 (2003). .

2008See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 755 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2000), aff'd, 572 Pa. 477 , 817 A.2d 479 (2003). [4] "Issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings.

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(n), since such an error by counsel could not “so undermine the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for sen

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(ii), since such an error by counsel could not "so undermine the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place." See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for s

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(n), since such an error by counsel could not “so undermine the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for sen

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(n), since such an error by counsel could not “so undermine the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for sen

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(n), since such an error by counsel could not “so undermine the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for sen

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(n), since such an error by counsel could not “so undermine the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for sen

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(n), since such an error by counsel could not “so undermine the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for sen

2000Previous holdings of this court clearly indicated that a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a sentencing claim for direct appeal was not a cognizable PCRA claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(a)(2)(n), since such an error by counsel could not “so undermine the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See e.g., Lantzy, 712 A.2d at 292 (claim that counsel was ineffective for advising defendant to withdraw his appeal and post-sentence motions was not a cognizable PCRA claim, since PCRA relief is available only for sen