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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2019 0 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. Fahygreen1 sentence2019While it appears that Appellant is making an illegality-of-sentence claim, we note that such claims must be raised in a timely PCRA. “[A]lthough illegal sentencing issues cannot be waived, they still must be presented in a timely PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2019While it appears that Appellant is making an illegality-of-sentence claim, we note that such claims must be raised in a timely PCRA. “[A]lthough illegal sentencing issues cannot be waived, they still must be presented in a timely PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Pursellgreen1 sentence2018See also Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911, 916-17 (Pa. 2000) (rejecting a claim based on the newly discovered facts exception to the PCRA’s time bar when the “facts” which formed the bases of the claim were alleged to have been unknown until petitioner was advised of them by current counsel). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen2 sentences1977We recently articulated the bases for this rule in Commonwealth v. Smith, 472 Pa. 492, 499-500 , 372 A.2d 797, 800-01 (1977), and need not repeat that discussion here. 1977We recently articulated the bases for this rule in Commonwealth v. Smith, 472 Pa. 492, 499-500 , 372 A.2d 797, 800-01 (1977), and need not repeat that discussion here. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2017Instantly, Appellant relies upon two United States Supreme Court decisions as the bases for an exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement as well as for substantive PCRA relief: Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (ruling unconstitutional mandatory life without possibility of parole (“LWOP”) sentences for juvenile offenders), and Montgomery v. Louisiana ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 718 , 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (filed January 25, 2016, and revised on January 27, 2016) (holding Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review). 2017Instantly, Appellant relies upon two United States Supreme Court decisions as the bases for an exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement as well as for substantive PCRA relief: Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (ruling unconstitutional mandatory life without possibility of parole (“LWOP”) sentences for juvenile offenders), and Montgomery v. Louisiana ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 718 , 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (filed January 25, 2016, and revised on January 27, 2016) (holding Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review). | 4 | 2016–2017 |
Montgomery v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2017Instantly, Appellant relies upon two United States Supreme Court decisions as the bases for an exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement as well as for substantive PCRA relief: Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (ruling unconstitutional mandatory life without possibility of parole (“LWOP”) sentences for juvenile offenders), and Montgomery v. Louisiana ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 718 , 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (filed January 25, 2016, and revised on January 27, 2016) (holding Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review). 2017Instantly, Appellant relies upon two United States Supreme Court decisions as the bases for an exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement as well as for substantive PCRA relief: Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (ruling unconstitutional mandatory life without possibility of parole (“LWOP”) sentences for juvenile offenders), and Montgomery v. Louisiana ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 718 , 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (filed January 25, 2016, and revised on January 27, 2016) (holding Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review). | 4 | 2016–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Riggins
green
2 sentences1981It will minimize the risk of reliance upon inaccurate information contained in the presentence report.18 A statement of reasons may aid correction authorities if the sentence results in a commitment, and may have therapeutic value if the sentencing judge explains his or her reasons to the defendant.19 Requiring a trial court to provide a reasoned basis for the sentence imposed may enhance the court’s legitimacy as perceived by judges themselves and participants in the criminal justice system.20 It will aid courts in attaining their institutional objec *523 tive of dispensing equal and impartia 1981It will minimize the risk of reliance upon inaccurate information contained in the presentence report.18 A statement of reasons may aid correction authorities if the sentence results in a commitment, and may have therapeutic value if the sentencing judge explains his or her reasons to the defendant.19 Requiring a trial court to provide a reasoned basis for the sentence imposed may enhance the court’s legitimacy as perceived by judges themselves and participants in the criminal justice system.20 It will aid courts in attaining their institutional objec *523 tive of dispensing equal and impartia | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.