case for an evidentiary hearing in Pennsylvania

1981Given our inability, as an appellate court, to appraise these factors, we are persuaded by the Commonwealth's suggestion that the proper procedure in this case is to remand the case for a hearing under Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 460 Pa. 105 , 331 A.2d 440 (1975). *447 Because of appellant's ineffectiveness claim, we are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the claim.

1981Given our inability, as an appellate court, to appraise these factors, we are persuaded by the Commonwealth's suggestion that the proper procedure in this case is to remand the case for a hearing under Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 460 Pa. 105 , 331 A.2d 440 (1975). *447 Because of appellant's ineffectiveness claim, we are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the claim.

2019Interrupting defendant's cross-examination of plaintiff and preventing defendant from presenting any evidence or testimony on his own behalf, the lower court discontinued the hearing and granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction. [Our] Supreme Court vacated the decree and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing after concluding that "[i]t is ... fundamental that all of the parties are entitled to a hearing before [a preliminary] injunction should issue." Id. [] at 336-37.

2014This state's Supreme Court vacated the decree and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing after entitled to a hearing before [a preliminary] injunction should Id. at 463 , 239 A.2d at 336 37.

1978Commonwealth v. Hubbard, supra; Commonwealth v. Moore, 466 Pa. 510 , 353 A.2d 808 (1976); Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 460 Pa. 105 , 331 A.2d 440 (1975).

1978Commonwealth v. Hubbard, supra; Commonwealth v. Moore, 466 Pa. 510 , 353 A.2d 808 (1976); Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 460 Pa. 105 , 331 A.2d 440 (1975).

2015The new “facts” upon which Thompson relies are two local newspaper articles discussing the impact that Alleyne had on certain mandatory minimum sentencing statutes in Pennsylvania.5 See Brief for Appellant at 11-12 (relying upon Commonwealth v. Riviera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (where the defendant was convicted for selling a large amount of cocaine to an undercover detective, on direct appeal, this Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing based on after-discovered evidence – a newspaper article – showing that the police chemist who had test

2011Appellant’s Brief, at 3. 4 In requesting a remand for a hearing to investigate Officer Cujdik’s alleged misconduct, Appellant relies on this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa.Super.2007), in which this Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing based on after-discovered evidence showing police chemist Colleen Brubaker was stealing drugs from the police lab for her personal use.

1986Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 253 Pa.Super. 24 , 384 A.2d 957 (1978) (requesting points for charge); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 252 Pa.Super. 111 , 380 A.2d 1307 (1977) (post-verdict motions) Commonwealth v. Hobson, 481 Pa. 526 , 393 A.2d 29 (1978) (motion for a change of venue).

1986Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 253 Pa.Super. 24 , 384 A.2d 957 (1978) (requesting points for charge); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 252 Pa.Super. 111 , 380 A.2d 1307 (1977) (post-verdict motions) Commonwealth v. Hobson, 481 Pa. 526 , 393 A.2d 29 (1978) (motion for a change of venue).

1986Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 253 Pa.Super. 24 , 384 A.2d 957 (1978) (requesting points for charge); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 252 Pa.Super. 111 , 380 A.2d 1307 (1977) (post-verdict motions) Commonwealth v. Hobson, 481 Pa. 526 , 393 A.2d 29 (1978) (motion for a change of venue).

1986Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 253 Pa.Super. 24 , 384 A.2d 957 (1978) (requesting points for charge); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 252 Pa.Super. 111 , 380 A.2d 1307 (1977) (post-verdict motions) Commonwealth v. Hobson, 481 Pa. 526 , 393 A.2d 29 (1978) (motion for a change of venue).

1986Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 253 Pa.Super. 24 , 384 A.2d 957 (1978) (requesting points for charge); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 252 Pa.Super. 111 , 380 A.2d 1307 (1977) (post-verdict motions) Commonwealth v. Hobson, 481 Pa. 526 , 393 A.2d 29 (1978) (motion for a change of venue).

1986Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 253 Pa.Super. 24 , 384 A.2d 957 (1978) (requesting points for charge); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 252 Pa.Super. 111 , 380 A.2d 1307 (1977) (post-verdict motions) Commonwealth v. Hobson, 481 Pa. 526 , 393 A.2d 29 (1978) (motion for a change of venue).

2022Accordingly, Judge Borkowski was “bound . . . to proceed with the scheduled hearing.” King, 999 A.2d at 601 . ____________________________________________ 5 The Commonwealth “recognized the advisability of conducting an evidentiary hearing,” and in its answer to Appellant’s petition, “wrote that ‘based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing be scheduled.’” Id. at 57-58.

2020Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007). - 18 - J-A21006-19 In addition to Appellant’s improper request that we engage in a materiality analysis of an unpreserved suppression claim, Appellant has failed to request that we remand the case for an evidentiary hearing.

2020This Court vacated the order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Appellant satisfied a jurisdictional time-bar exception in his untimely PCRA petition.7 Id. ____________________________________________ 5Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 6On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court stayed the habeas corpus action. 7 The three narrow statutory exceptions to the PCRA jurisdictional time-bar are as follows: “(1) interference by government off

2020This Court vacated the order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Appellant satisfied a jurisdictional time-bar exception in his untimely PCRA petition.7 Id. ____________________________________________ 5Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 6On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court stayed the habeas corpus action. 7 The three narrow statutory exceptions to the PCRA jurisdictional time-bar are as follows: “(1) interference by government off

2018(See Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 2016 WL 832149 , at *3 (Pa. Super. filed Mar. 2, 2016) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 141 A.3d 478 (Pa. 2016)).

2017Id.

2017We remand this case for an evidentiary hearing on these issues. -4- J-S62023-17 Thompson, 158 A.3d 185 (unpublished memorandum at 2-3).

2016Id.

2016J-S42009-16 determine if the court erred in refusing to allow Appellant to introduce evidence that the victims had also made other allegations of sexual assault against three other individuals around the same time as the allegations against Appellant. [Commonwealth v. Boatright, 38 A.3d 916 ,] No. 1831 WDA 2010 [Pa. Super. filed November 9, 2011 (unpublished memorandum)].

2015Noting that it was “likely that a new trial is warranted in this case,” id. at 359 , we nonetheless followed the proper procedure and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to allow Rivera to make his case to the trial court that the after-discovered evidence met the four-prong test discussed above.

2013Noting that it was “likely that a new trial is warranted in this case,” id. at 359 , we nonetheless followed the proper procedure and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to allow Rivera to make his case to the trial court that the after-discovered evidence met the four-prong test discussed above.

2012Commonwealth v. Thomas, 578 Pa. 455 , 854 A.2d 411 (2004).

2012Commonwealth v. Thomas, 578 Pa. 455 , 854 A.2d 411 (2004).