Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 5 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. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2017The PCRA court determined that the newly- recognized-constitutional-right exception to the PCRA’s one-year timeliness requirement provided in 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(iii) did not apply because our Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1, 11 (Pa. 2013), that Miller does not apply retroactively.1 While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), that Miller announced a new substantive rule of law which applies retroactively. 2016The PCRA court determined that Appellant did not properly invoke the newly-recognized-constitutional-right exception to the PCRA’s one-year timeliness requirement provided in 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(iii) because our Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1, 11 (Pa. 2013), that Miller does not apply retroactively. | 9 | 9 |
Commonwealth v. Fahygreen2 sentences2022Id. at 998 ; see also Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (holding that claims challenging the legality of sentence are subject to review within the PCRA, but must first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits). 2017See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (“[a]lthough [the] legality of [a] sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto”). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Hackettgreen2 sentences2017Furtherj “a petition raising an exception to the one-year timeliness requirement must ‘be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented’ pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)[.]” Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350 , 956 A.2d 978, 982 (2008). 2017Furtherj “a petition raising an exception to the one-year timeliness requirement must ‘be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented’ pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)[.]” Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350 , 956 A.2d 978, 982 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Butlergreen1 sentence2025Id.; see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) (stating that a PCRA petition must be filed within ____________________________________________ 1 We recognize that Rule 1925(b) requires an appellant to file his/her concise statement, and this Court has held that “Rule 1925 is not satisfied when an appellant merely mails his Rule 1925(b) statement to the presiding judge.” Commonwealth v. Butler, 812 A.2d 631, 634 (Pa. 2002); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1) (requiring an appellant to “file of record” the concise statement, and “concurrently … serve the judge”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylorgreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 , 725- 726 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA petitioner cannot establish “new fact” exception merely by alleging possible ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unknown to petitioner and could not have been discovered until after present counsel reviewed petitioner’s file). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamalgreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 , 725- 726 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA petitioner cannot establish “new fact” exception merely by alleging possible ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unknown to petitioner and could not have been discovered until after present counsel reviewed petitioner’s file). | 1 | 1 |
Cowher, K. v. Kodali, S.green1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Stahl, 292 A.3d 1130 , 1136 (Pa. Super. 2023). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Callahangreen1 sentence2020The PCRA’s one-year timeliness requirement runs from the date that a judgment of sentence becomes final on direct review, not from the conclusion of any collateral proceedings. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“In fixing the date upon which a judgment of sentence becomes final, the PCRA does not refer to the conclusion of collateral review or the time for appealing a collateral review determination.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2017The PCRA court determined that the newly- recognized-constitutional-right exception to the PCRA’s one-year timeliness requirement provided in 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(iii) did not apply because our Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1, 11 (Pa. 2013), that Miller does not apply retroactively.1 While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), that Miller announced a new substantive rule of law which applies retroactively. 2016While this appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), that Miller announced a new substantive rule of law which applies retroactively. | 6 | 2016–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Williams
green
2 sentences2021Specifically, Appellant averred that the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Williams, 166 A.3d 460 (Pa. Super. 2017)2 qualified as a newly-discovered fact3 and/or a new constitutional right.4 ____________________________________________ 2 In Williams we held that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to amend the information to add a new charge where “[t]he Commonwealth injected [the] new charge into this case at the eleventh hour in clear disregard for rules whose purpose is to give the defendant a fair opportunity to prepare and present her defense.” 2021Specifically, Appellant averred that the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Williams, 166 A.3d 460 (Pa. Super. 2017)2 qualified as a newly-discovered fact3 and/or a new constitutional right.4 ____________________________________________ 2 In Williams we held that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to amend the information to add a new charge where “[t]he Commonwealth injected [the] new charge into this case at the eleventh hour in clear disregard for rules whose purpose is to give the defendant a fair opportunity to prepare and present her defense.” | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Mills v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2008We concluded that because Appellee had failed to develop the requisite record identifying the race of the relevant venirepersons, his underlying claim lacked merit and counsel could not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise it. 735 A.2d at 695 . [7] The District Court granted the petition and awarded Appellee a new penalty hearing based on Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988) (vacating a death sentence because there was a substantial probability that the jury may have interpreted the court's instructions and verdict form as precluding it from consideri 2008We concluded that because Appellee had failed to develop the requisite record identifying the race of the relevant venirepersons, his underlying claim lacked merit and counsel could not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise it. 735 A.2d at 695 . [7] The District Court granted the petition and awarded Appellee a new penalty hearing based on Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988) (vacating a death sentence because there was a substantial probability that the jury may have interpreted the court's instructions and verdict form as precluding it from consideri | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Hackett
green
1 sentence2008We concluded that because Appellee had failed to develop the requisite record identifying the race of the relevant venirepersons, his underlying claim lacked merit and counsel could not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise it. 735 A.2d at 695 . [7] The District Court granted the petition and awarded Appellee a new penalty hearing based on Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988) (vacating a death sentence because there was a substantial probability that the jury may have interpreted the court's instructions and verdict form as precluding it from consideri | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Everett
green
2 sentences2007Relying upon Commonwealth v. Everett, 277 Pa.Super. 323 , 419 A.2d 793 (1980), Appellant maintains that his original sentence was illegal because the sentencing court failed to place its reasons for the sentence on the record, and that the issue is cognizable under the PCRA. 2007Relying upon Commonwealth v. Everett, 277 Pa.Super. 323 , 419 A.2d 793 (1980), Appellant maintains that his original sentence was illegal because the sentencing court failed to place its reasons for the sentence on the record, and that the issue is cognizable under the PCRA. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.