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.
78 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2026 46 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. Lincolngreen2 sentences2026“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea 3 on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (footnote added). 2026“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). | 57 | 72 |
Com. v. Moore, B.green2 sentences2026See Commonwealth v. Moore, 307 A.3d 95, 99 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1)); see also Lincoln, 72 A.3d at 609-10 (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion -6- J-S07041-26 to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing.”). 2024See Commonwealth v. Moore, 307 A.3d 95, 99 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1)); see also Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing.”). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amayagreen2 sentences2025See Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) ("A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing.") (citations omitted). ""[A] [A] party cannot rectify the failure to preserve an issue by proffering it in response to a Rule 1925(b) order." Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 469 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations and quotation 466,469 omitted). 2024“In order to preserve an issue related to a guilty plea, an appellant must either ‘object[ ] at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise[ ] the issue at the sentence hearing or through a post-sentence motion.’” Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 468-69 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing. | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Mourygreen2 sentences2025Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 . -9- J-S43041-24 Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006). 2025Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010). | 3 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Shugarsgreen1 sentence2025Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 . -9- J-S43041-24 Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rotolagreen2 sentences2024See Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.Super. 2013) (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object ____________________________________________ 2 Appellant analogizes this case to Commonwealth v. Rotola, 173 A.3d 831 (Pa.Super. 2017). 2024See Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 , 609-10 (Pa.Super. 2013) (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object ____________________________________________ 2 Appellant analogizes this case to Commonwealth v. Rotola, 173 A.3d 831 (Pa.Super. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Colemangreen1 sentence2023Failure to employ either measure results in waiver.” (citations omitted)); Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111, 1118 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues raised for first time in a Rule 1925(b) statement are waived); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(1)(a)(i). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Goldblumgreen1 sentence2022N.T. 1/12/21, 8-9 (Appellant not contesting the summary of the facts presented at his plea hearing); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 210 (Pa. 2007) (noting that “courts of common pleas have statewide jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Crimes Code); Commonwealth v. Goldblum, 447 A.2d 234, 244 (Pa. 1982) (“Subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court exists by virtue of the presentation of prima facie evidence that a criminal act occurred within the jurisdiction of the court.”); Commonwealth v. McNeil, 665 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“Personal jurisdiction in a cr | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2022N.T. 1/12/21, 8-9 (Appellant not contesting the summary of the facts presented at his plea hearing); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 210 (Pa. 2007) (noting that “courts of common pleas have statewide jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Crimes Code); Commonwealth v. Goldblum, 447 A.2d 234, 244 (Pa. 1982) (“Subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court exists by virtue of the presentation of prima facie evidence that a criminal act occurred within the jurisdiction of the court.”); Commonwealth v. McNeil, 665 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“Personal jurisdiction in a cr | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McNeilgreen1 sentence2022N.T. 1/12/21, 8-9 (Appellant not contesting the summary of the facts presented at his plea hearing); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 210 (Pa. 2007) (noting that “courts of common pleas have statewide jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Crimes Code); Commonwealth v. Goldblum, 447 A.2d 234, 244 (Pa. 1982) (“Subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court exists by virtue of the presentation of prima facie evidence that a criminal act occurred within the jurisdiction of the court.”); Commonwealth v. McNeil, 665 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“Personal jurisdiction in a cr | 1 | 1 |
Spuck v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2022Everything else is going to be up to the judge at the time of sentencing for all your cases.”). - 12 - J-S12029-22 See Hinkal v. Pardoe, 133 A.3d 738, 746 (Pa.Super. 2016) (“A Rule 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal is not a vehicle in which issues not previously asserted may be raised for the first time.”); Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.Super. 2013) (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Kleingreen1 sentence2019“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing.” ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v. Klein, 781 A.2d 1133, 1135 (Pa. 2001) (holding that where a Notice of Appeal has been filed, a trial court cannot act further in the matter); Pa.R.A.P. 1701. 3 Appellant filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) Statement, but the trial court nevertheless addressed the issues contained in the untimely Statement. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2017See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 867 A.2d 589, 591 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“A plea of guilty forecloses challenges to all matters except the voluntariness of the plea, the jurisdiction of the court, or the legality of the sentence[; but] an appellant may challenge the discretionary aspects of sentence in these circumstances, so long as there is no plea agreement as to the terms of the sentence” (citations omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Manngreen1 sentence2017See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 867 A.2d 589, 591 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“A plea of guilty forecloses challenges to all matters except the voluntariness of the plea, the jurisdiction of the court, or the legality of the sentence[; but] an appellant may challenge the discretionary aspects of sentence in these circumstances, so long as there is no plea agreement as to the terms of the sentence” (citations omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the | 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. Tareila
green
2 sentences2023“Failure to employ either measure results in waiver.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 , 1270 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006)). 2016“Failure to employ either measure results in waiver.” Id. at 610 (citing Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 , 1270 n. 3 (Pa.Super.2006)). | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2020Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). -5- J-S63011-19 Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 624 Pa. 688 , 87 A.3d 319 (2014) (holding defendant failed to preserve challenge to validity of guilty plea where he did not object during plea colloquy or file post-sentence motion to withdraw plea). 2020Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). -5- J-S63011-19 Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 624 Pa. 688 , 87 A.3d 319 (2014) (holding defendant failed to preserve challenge to validity of guilty plea where he did not object during plea colloquy or file post-sentence motion to withdraw plea). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ramirez v. Giroux
green
1 sentence2016Fields, 107 A.3d at 744–45. 12 In Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013), this Court opined: A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.