134 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 52 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Graziergreen2 sentences2026However, before Attorney Hall filed anything on ____________________________________________ 4 We note that there is no indication in the record that Appellant desired to proceed pro se and, in any event, there is no indication that the PCRA court held a hearing, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998), to determine if any such waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. 5 Typically, a PCRA petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel for a subsequent petition. 2025Further, we note that after Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal, the PCRA court held a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). | 5 | 38 |
Commonwealth v. Henkelgreen2 sentences2021When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, we consider the record “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.” Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 , 872 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)). 2014See Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc).2 As such, Yendell’s final issue on appeal merits no relief, and we affirm the PCRA court’s order. ____________________________________________ 2 We note that this Court remanded this appeal to the PCRA court for a hearing on whether PCRA counsel had abandoned Yendell on appeal for failing to file an appellate brief. | 3 | 3 |
Com. of Pa. v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2026Specifically, [Appellant] allege[d] that Kevin Endrick sent an unsolicited letter to former PCRA counsel, [Attorney] Norcini, … indicating that Mr. Endrick was a former resident of Devereaux at the time of these alleged offenses; that the alleged complainants of said offenses informed him prior to the reporting of charges that they intended to fabricate complaints against [Appellant] in an attempt to get [Appellant] fired; and that the complainants tried to recruit Mr. Endrick into being an additional complainant. ____________________________________________ 2 Although the PCRA court did not r 2026Specifically, [Appellant] allege[d] that Kevin Endrick sent an unsolicited letter to former PCRA counsel, [Attorney] Norcini, … indicating that Mr. Endrick was a former resident of Devereaux at the time of these alleged offenses; that the alleged complainants of said offenses informed him prior to the reporting of charges that they intended to fabricate complaints against [Appellant] in an attempt to get [Appellant] fired; and that the complainants tried to recruit Mr. Endrick into being an additional complainant. ____________________________________________ 2 Although the PCRA court did not r | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Leatherbygreen2 sentences2024See Leatherb[y], 116 A.3d at 79 (“[An appellant] should not be precluded from appellate review based on what was, in effect, an administrative breakdown on the part of the trial court.”). 2023See Leatherbury, 116 A.3d at 79 (“[An appellant] should not be precluded from appellate review based on what was, in effect, an administrative breakdown on the part of the trial court.”). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2021See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997) (discussing the “prisoner mailbox rule”); Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that this Court must docket a pro se notice of appeal even if the appellant is represented by counsel). -2- J-S44029-20 The PCRA court held a hearing on May 14, 2020, at which trial counsel, Appellant’s mother, and Appellant testified. 2019See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa.Super. 2016). 3 Stone had thirty days from the October 16, 2018 dismissal order in which to file a notice of appeal. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Portergreen2 sentences2018Our Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]he PCRA court [has] the ability and responsibility to manage its docket and caseload and thus has an essential role in ensuring the timely resolution of PCRA matters.” Commonwealth v. Renchenski, 52 A.3d 251, 260 (Pa. 2012) (citing Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4 , 24–25 (2012) (“[T]he court, not counsel, controls the scope, timing and pace of the proceedings below.”)). 2017See Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4, 12 (Pa. 2012). 17 The PCRA court held a hearing on July 28, 2015, to ensure that Appellant desired representation by court-appointed counsel. 18 Counsel’s no merit letter did not address the timeliness of Appellant’s July 6, 2015 PCRA petition, but only Appellant’s underlying PCRA claims, which counsel found to be lacking in merit. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Pategreen2 sentences2015In declining to resolve the suppression issue, the trial -6- J-S07023-15 court relied on a body of case law directing that “once the PCRA court finds that the petitioner's appellate rights have been abridged, it should grant leave to file a direct appeal and end its inquiry there.” Commonwealth v. Pate, 617 A.2d 754, 757-758 (Pa. Super. 1992). 2003In declining to resolve the suppression issue, the trial court relied on a body of case law directing that “once the PCRA court finds that the petitioner’s appellate rights have been abridged, it should grant leave to file a direct appeal and end its inquiry there.” Commonwealth v. Pate, 421 Pa.Super. 122 , 617 A.2d 754, 757-58 (1992). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Finleygreen2 sentences2025Prior to a hearing on the matters alleged, first PCRA counsel filed a no-merit letter and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Turner/ Finley, supra. The PCRA court held a hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw and denied it on June 16, 2021, ordering counsel to continue representation of Appellant at a scheduled July 19, 2021, evidentiary hearing on the jury misconduct issue. 2023See also Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). -2- J-S17008-23 petition, claiming that he had not received Attorney Kelly’s “no-merit” letter due to mail restrictions at the prison.5 The PCRA court did not rule on this request. | 1 | 10 |
Commonwealth v. Rykardgreen2 sentences2025As a preliminary matter, we observe that “[g]enerally, once the court permits PCRA counsel to withdraw after filing a Turner/Finley ‘no-merit’ letter, an appellant is no longer entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Shaw, 217 A.3d 265 , 268 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2019). ____________________________________________ 3 The PCRA court did not rule on Appellant’s “Objection to Dismissal of Order,” presumably due to the pending appeal. -3- J-S01025-25 See also Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 619 Pa. 714 , 64 A.3d 631 (2013) (explaining that w 2025See generally Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, ____________________________________________ 3 The PCRA court did not rule on Appellant’s “Objection to Dismissal of Order,” presumably due to the pending appeal. -3- J-S01025-25 619 Pa. 714 , 64 A.3d 631 (2013) (explaining that when counsel has been appointed to represent PCRA petitioner and that right has been fully vindicated following grant of counsel’s petition to withdraw under Turner/Finley, court shall not appoint new counsel and appellant must look to her own resources for future proceedings). | 1 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2024Invoking language from Commonwealth v. Miller, 746 A.2d 592 (Pa. 2000), Rivera asserted that this Court has “held that claims are reviewable when the petitioner does not rely on previously litigated evidence.” (Second PCRA Petition, 7/28/2017, at 14, ¶35.) Rivera further submitted that, “even previously litigated legal theories are cognizable if they are presented as claims that the manner in which counsel presented the claims was ineffective.” (Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005)).)9 Following procedural steps that included multiple continuances and the matter being r 2008Commonwealth v. Collins, 585 Pa. 45 , 888 A.2d 564, 579 (2005). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2016Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204 , 961 A.2d 80 (2008). 2016Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204 , 961 A.2d 80 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2026Commonwealth v. Jackson, 965 A.2d 280, 283 (Pa. Super. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Millergreen1 sentence2026Appellant’s brief at 4-5.5 Proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to the examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamalgreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786, 823 (Pa. 2008), abrogated on other grounds sub nom, Pena–Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017) (affirming the PCRA court’s finding that the underlying PCRA petition did not meet the arguable merit prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard on credibility grounds); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (“A PCRA court passes on witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its credibility determinations should be provided great deference by reviewing courts.”); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (Pa. 1998) ( | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Steelegreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786, 823 (Pa. 2008), abrogated on other grounds sub nom, Pena–Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017) (affirming the PCRA court’s finding that the underlying PCRA petition did not meet the arguable merit prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard on credibility grounds); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (“A PCRA court passes on witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its credibility determinations should be provided great deference by reviewing courts.”); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (Pa. 1998) ( | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. MacIasgreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that this Court cannot simply “re-weigh the sentencing factors and impose our judgment in the place of the sentencing court”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2025See Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786, 823 (Pa. 2008), abrogated on other grounds sub nom, Pena–Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017) (affirming the PCRA court’s finding that the underlying PCRA petition did not meet the arguable merit prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard on credibility grounds); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (“A PCRA court passes on witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its credibility determinations should be provided great deference by reviewing courts.”); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (Pa. 1998) ( 2025See Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786, 823 (Pa. 2008), abrogated on other grounds sub nom, Pena–Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017) (affirming the PCRA court’s finding that the underlying PCRA petition did not meet the arguable merit prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard on credibility grounds); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (“A PCRA court passes on witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its credibility determinations should be provided great deference by reviewing courts.”); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (Pa. 1998) ( | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Howard, M.green1 sentence2025This Court reviews the dismissal of a PCRA petition to determine “whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Howard, 285 A.3d 652, 657 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Pena-Rodriguez v. Coloradogreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786, 823 (Pa. 2008), abrogated on other grounds sub nom, Pena–Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017) (affirming the PCRA court’s finding that the underlying PCRA petition did not meet the arguable merit prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard on credibility grounds); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (“A PCRA court passes on witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its credibility determinations should be provided great deference by reviewing courts.”); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79, 99 (Pa. 1998) ( | 1 | 1 |
| Com. v. Smith, S.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Touwgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Ahlborngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Hutchinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Ballancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Rizvigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Busanetgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frazier v. City of Philadelphiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Ligonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Postiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Holmesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Lawsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thach v. Abington Memorial Hospitalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Solano, R.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Pursellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Widmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Fordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Joseph v. Gluntgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Franklingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Turner
green
2 sentences2022The PCRA court held a hearing on January 8, 2021, at which PCRA counsel explained that he had reviewed the record and concluded that the ____________________________________________ 2Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). -2- J-A09015-22 issues Appellant sought to raise lacked merit. 2017Did the PCRA Court error in denying appellants PCRA, First Supplement to PCRA and the Response to the Judges Rule 907 Notice, that dealt with claims of trial Counsel’s ____________________________________________ 3 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 4 In lieu of a Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the PCRA Court submitted a “Statement of Reasons” directing our attention to its December 30, 2016 Order and Notice of Intent to Dismiss. | 7 | 2017–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Rathfon
green
2 sentences2017Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365 (Pa.Super. 2006). 2017Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365 (Pa.Super. 2006). | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Alleyne v. United States
green
2 sentences2023However, because the PCRA court held a hearing at which the issues Christian wished to raise were addressed, we will proceed with our review. 4 PCRA counsel also indicated that Christian had raised an issue relating to Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), in which the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory minimum sentence be submitted to a jury. 2016In his amended petition, Appellant claimed that his sentence was illegal under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that any fact that by law increases a mandatory minimum sentence must be treated as an element of the offense and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.1 The PCRA court held a hearing on Appellant’s petition on April 24, 2015, and denied the petition on December 11, 2015. | 3 | 2015–2023 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2023The PCRA court held a hearing in March 2017, after delays caused by change of -4- J-S38021-22 counsel, the filing of multiple amended PCRA petitions, and the United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016).2 On July 19, 2019, the PCRA court granted Appellant’s request for resentencing pursuant to Miller/Montgomery but denied Appellant’s remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2016Over two years later, on August 10, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se, amended petition, along with a “Motion for Expedited Decision.” Therein, Appellant argued that his mandatory LWOP -2- J-S10018-16 sentence was illegal under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Montgomery v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2023The PCRA court held a hearing in March 2017, after delays caused by change of -4- J-S38021-22 counsel, the filing of multiple amended PCRA petitions, and the United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016).2 On July 19, 2019, the PCRA court granted Appellant’s request for resentencing pursuant to Miller/Montgomery but denied Appellant’s remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2022Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 208-13 . -2- J-S20013-22 The PCRA court held a hearing on February 9, 2018, to address both Appellant’s outstanding second PCRA petition raising a claim of after- discovered evidence and the remand for resentencing pursuant to Walker III. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
State v. Torres
green
2 sentences2021On August 22, 2016, the PCRA court held a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1998). 2020On August 22, 2016, the PCRA court held a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1998).7 The PCRA court granted Appellant’s motion to proceed pro se and permitted counsel to withdraw. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Pitts
green
2 sentences2018Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 , 880 n.4 (Pa. 2009). 2016In support of this request, Appellant posits that he had no opportunity before the PCRA court to claim ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel in failing to acquire and use prison phone records that would substantially corroborate his testimony that he asked plea counsel to file a direct appeal on his behalf. 4 To advance his ____________________________________________ 4 Nowhere in Appellant’s Response/Application does he indicate that the phone conversation records would specifically confirm his testimony that he (Footnote Continued Next Page) -5- J-S21038-16 claim, Appellant offers Commonwea | 2 | 2016–2018 |
Roper v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2005AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2005, the Petition for Remand is hereby GRANTED, and the matter is remanded to the PCRA court to permit appellant to raise, and the PCRA court to rule upon, a claim pursuant to Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), without prejudice for appellant to obtain appellate review of the remainder of his guilt phase claims. 2005AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2005, the Petition for Remand is hereby GRANTED, and the matter is remanded to the PCRA court to permit appellant to raise, and the PCRA court to rule upon, a claim pursuant to Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), without prejudice for appellant to obtain appellate review of the remainder of his guilt phase claims. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2026Whether the PCRA court was in error in finding that [Harper] did not meet the materiality requirement according to the rules of Brady, Giglio, Kyles v. Whitley, [ 514 U.S. 419 (1995)], and all the case[s] of the United States Supreme Court [regarding] Brady violations[?] 3. 2026Whether the PCRA court was in error in finding that [Harper] did not meet the materiality requirement according to the rules of Brady, Giglio, Kyles v. Whitley, [ 514 U.S. 419 (1995)], and all the case[s] of the United States Supreme Court [regarding] Brady violations[?] 3. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Giglio v. United States
green
1 sentence2026Whether the PCRA court was in error for not granting [Harper] a new trial based on the facts of his Brady/Giglio[ v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)] violation[?] 2. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Com. v. Shaw, P.
green
1 sentence2025As a preliminary matter, we observe that “[g]enerally, once the court permits PCRA counsel to withdraw after filing a Turner/Finley ‘no-merit’ letter, an appellant is no longer entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Shaw, 217 A.3d 265 , 268 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2019). ____________________________________________ 3 The PCRA court did not rule on Appellant’s “Objection to Dismissal of Order,” presumably due to the pending appeal. -3- J-S01025-25 See also Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 619 Pa. 714 , 64 A.3d 631 (2013) (explaining that w | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Commonwealth v. Miller green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Commonwealth v. McGill green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Commonwealth v. Bennett green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Bruton v. United States green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Com. v. Sanchez neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Commonwealth v. Marinez green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Commonwealth v. Alston green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt. red | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| McCoy v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commonwealth v. Tabarez green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Pennsylvania v. Muniz green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commonwealth v. Tedford green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Commonwealth v. Reaves green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Commonwealth v. Veon green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Commonwealth v. Edmiston red | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Com. v. Melendez-Negron, J., Jr. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Commonwealth v. Jackson green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.