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.
18 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schuylkill Township v. Pennsylvania Builders Associationgreen2 sentences2021“We emphasize that it is the petitioner who bears the burden to allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587 , 947 A.2d 714, 719 (2008) (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 3 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2) previously provided that a petition invoking a timeliness exception was required to be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could first have been presented. 2021“We emphasize that it is the petitioner who bears the burden to allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587 , 947 A.2d 714, 719 (2008) (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 3 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2) previously provided that a petition invoking a timeliness exception was required to be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could first have been presented. | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylorgreen2 sentences2020See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70 , 753 A.2d 780 (2000). 2020See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70 , 753 A.2d 780 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Fahygreen2 sentences2021Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 222 (Pa. 1999). 2016Additionally, a petition invoking a timeliness exception pursuant to the statute must “be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. at § 9545(b)(2). -5- J-S13011-16 consider Resch’s petition and properly dismissed it.4 Jones, supra; Fahy, supra. Order affirmed. | 1 | 3 |
Com. v. Pearson, M.green1 sentence2026Moreover, “[p]ost conviction DNA testing does not directly create an exception to § 9545’s one-year time bar.” Commonwealth v. Pearson, 320 A.3d 1224, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Thach v. Abington Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence2026To meet the newly-discovered facts timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner must “demonstrate he did not know the -4- J-S05017-26 facts upon which he based his petition and could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 761 , 125 A.3d 1197 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Staton, A., Aplt.green1 sentence2025Nicholas asserts that his PCRA petition is timely under the newly discovered fact exception to the timeliness requirement. 2 To satisfy the newly discovered fact exception “the petitioner must establish only that (1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown and (2) they could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen1 sentence2023Furthermore, we consider: “Although a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception, the petitioner must plead and prove that the failure to previously raise these claims was the result of interference by government officials, and that the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Smith, 194 A.3d at 133 (citation omitted). - 10 - J-S33022-23 Appellant avers the PCRA court erred in finding his petition was untimely and in dismissing his petition without a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Madenspachergreen1 sentence2018In Burton, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that “the presumption that information which is of public record cannot be deemed ‘unknown’ for purposes of subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) [of the PCRA] does not apply to pro se prisoner petitioners.” Burton, 158 A.3d at 638 (emphasis in original). | 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. Marshall
green
2 sentences2021“We emphasize that it is the petitioner who bears the burden to allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587 , 947 A.2d 714, 719 (2008) (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 3 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2) previously provided that a petition invoking a timeliness exception was required to be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could first have been presented. 2021“We emphasize that it is the petitioner who bears the burden to allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587 , 947 A.2d 714, 719 (2008) (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 3 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2) previously provided that a petition invoking a timeliness exception was required to be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could first have been presented. | 3 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Carter
green
2 sentences2016Additionally, a petition invoking a timeliness exception pursuant to the statute must “be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. at § 9545(b)(2). -5- J-S13011-16 consider Resch’s petition and properly dismissed it.4 Jones, supra; Fahy, supra. Order affirmed. 2015Jones, supra; Fahy, supra. Order affirmed. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Com. v. Barnhart
green
1 sentence2026To meet the newly-discovered facts timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner must “demonstrate he did not know the -4- J-S05017-26 facts upon which he based his petition and could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 761 , 125 A.3d 1197 (2015). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Abeln v. Eidelman
green
1 sentence2026To meet the newly-discovered facts timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner must “demonstrate he did not know the -4- J-S05017-26 facts upon which he based his petition and could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 761 , 125 A.3d 1197 (2015). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Com. v. Larkin, R.
green
1 sentence2024Finally, “[a]sserted exceptions to the time restrictions for the PCRA must be included in the petition, and may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350 , 356 (Pa.Super. 2020) (en banc). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Com. v. Vinson, J.
green
1 sentence2022However, effective December 24, 2018, the legislature amended Subsection 9545(b)(2)” to increase that time limit to one year.” Commonwealth v. Vinson, 249 A.3d 1197 , 1204 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2021). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Johnson v. United States
green
1 sentence2021The amendment, inter alia, substituted “within one year” for “within 60 days” in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2); and Section 3 of Act 2018-146 provided that this amendment “shall apply only to claims arising one year before the effective date of this section or thereafter.” -7- J-A02011-21 The constitutional right at issue herein was allegedly recognized in Johnson, supra, which was decided on June 26, 2015.5 The PCRA court correctly examined whether Appellant’s assertion that the United States Supreme Court created a new constitutional right in Johnson would satisfy the timeliness exception for an a | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2019Indeed, in his petition, Stanley contended he was entitled to review pursuant to the PCRA’s new constitutional right exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), based upon Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and related case law.8 See Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition, 8/23/2012, at 3-7. ____________________________________________ 7 We note that until recently, a petition invoking a timeliness exception had to be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Neiman
green
1 sentence2015Durant’s claim invokes the newly-recognized constitutional right exception in section 9545(b)(1)(iii); Durant bases his claim upon the holding in Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013), filed on December 16, 2013. | 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.