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.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. Ryangreen2 sentences2020In Martinez, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that: [w]here, [as in Pennsylvania,] under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial- review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas corpus court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective. 2017Appellant focuses his argument on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 , 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), wherein the Court held that: [w]here, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, -8- J-S72042-17 a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective. | 3 | 12 |
Trevino v. Thalergreen1 sentence2013Just this past term, the High Court extended the Martinez exception to include situations where, although a state does not absolutely bar the prospect of raising ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal, as Arizona did in Martinez , “the state procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal.” Trevino , 569 U.S. at -, 133 S.Ct. at 1921 (construing Texas procedural law). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. of Pa. v. Kitchen
green
1 sentence2024The District Court noted Appellant’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 181 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc), in which this Court held ____________________________________________ 5 As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has observed: Where a state court refuses to consider a habeas petitioner’s claims because of a violation of state procedural rules, a federal court is generally barred by the procedural default doctrine from considering the claims. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald
green
1 sentence2017Pierce, 527 A.2d at 975 ; Fitzgerald, 979 A.2d at 911 . - 27 - J-S08002-17 Martinez held that where, under state law, ineffective-assistance-of- trial-counsel claims must be raised in the initial collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing those claims if, in that initial collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Pierce
green
1 sentence2017Pierce, 527 A.2d at 975 ; Fitzgerald, 979 A.2d at 911 . - 27 - J-S08002-17 Martinez held that where, under state law, ineffective-assistance-of- trial-counsel claims must be raised in the initial collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing those claims if, in that initial collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lawrence v. Illinois
green
1 sentence2015Martinez v. Ryan, 123 S. Ct. 1309 , 1316 (2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Johnston
green
1 sentence2015Therefore, because the Martinez ruling does not fit within an exception to the PCRA’s time bar, the trial court properly dismissed Ramos’ untimely petition.4 Johnston, supra. ____________________________________________ 2 In Martinez, the Supreme Court held: Where, under state law, claims of ineffectiveness assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas corpus court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding there was no counsel or | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Breard v. Greene
green
2 sentences2000Breard contended that, despite the procedural default of his claim, his Vienna Convention claim could nonetheless be heard in federal court because the Convention is “ ‘the supreme law of the land’ and thus trumps the procedural default doctrine.” 523 U.S. at 375 , 118 S.Ct. 1352, 1354 . 2000Breard contended that, despite the procedural default of his claim, his Vienna Convention claim could nonetheless be heard in federal court because the Convention is “ ‘the supreme law of the land’ and thus trumps the procedural default doctrine.” 523 U.S. at 375 , 118 S.Ct. 1352, 1354 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.