8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Hemingwaygreen1 sentence2023The comment to Rule 590 outlines the requirement that a colloquy delve into the defendant’s understanding of: (1) the nature of the charges; (2) the ____________________________________________ Hemingway, 13 A.3d 491, 496 (Pa. Super. 2011) (noting that “[t]he existence of subject matter jurisdiction goes to the heart of a court’s ability to act in a particular case . . . and may be raised by any party or by the court, sua sponte . . .. (citation omitted)). -6- J-S19037-23 factual basis for the plea; (3) his trial rights; (4) the presumption of innocence; (5) the permissible range of sentences | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 211-12 (Pa. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Fordgreen1 sentence2021See Commonwealth. v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1200 (Pa. Super. 2012) (This Court may not review claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness that are raised for the first time on appeal because they “must be raised in a serial PCRA petition or in response to a notice of dismissal before the PCRA court.”); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2014The seven issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing were: (1) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to object to the trial court’s instruction on accomplice liability, (2) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to adequately investigate and present evidence on the cause of death, (3) a jury selection challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), (4) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to present mitigation evidence, (5) allegations related to appellate counsels’ performance, (6) a general request regarding the application of rela 2014The seven issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing were: (1) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to object to the trial court’s instruction on accomplice liability, (2) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to adequately investigate and present evidence on the cause of death, (3) a jury selection challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), (4) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to present mitigation evidence, (5) allegations related to appellate counsels’ performance, (6) a general request regarding the application of rela | 5 | 2009–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Lassiter
green
2 sentences2014The seven issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing were: (1) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to object to the trial court’s instruction on accomplice liability, (2) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to adequately investigate and present evidence on the cause of death, (3) a jury selection challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), (4) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to present mitigation evidence, (5) allegations related to appellate counsels’ performance, (6) a general request regarding the application of rela 2014The seven issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing were: (1) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to object to the trial court’s instruction on accomplice liability, (2) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to adequately investigate and present evidence on the cause of death, (3) a jury selection challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), (4) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to present mitigation evidence, (5) allegations related to appellate counsels’ performance, (6) a general request regarding the application of rela | 5 | 2009–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Colding
green
2 sentences2009As that is not at issue, we need not determine whether the January 29th order was final. [9] See Commonwealth v. Colding, 482 Pa. 112 , 393 A.2d 404 , 405 n. 2 (1978) providing that reconsideration of a sentence should only occur following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard. [10] This Court is well aware of the difficulty posed in collateral capital appeals where the court fails to dispose of all claims, thereby raising the prospect of piecemeal review and unnecessary delays. 2009As that is not at issue, we need not determine whether the January 29th order was final. [9] See Commonwealth v. Colding, 482 Pa. 112 , 393 A.2d 404 , 405 n. 2 (1978) providing that reconsideration of a sentence should only occur following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard. [10] This Court is well aware of the difficulty posed in collateral capital appeals where the court fails to dispose of all claims, thereby raising the prospect of piecemeal review and unnecessary delays. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Tops Apparel Manufacturing Co. v. Rothman
green
2 sentences1984Tops Apparel Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Rothman, 430 Pa. 583 , 244 A.2d 436 (1968); Crown Construction Co. v. Newfoundland American Ins. 1984Tops Apparel Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Rothman, 430 Pa. 583 , 244 A.2d 436 (1968); Crown Construction Co. v. Newfoundland American Ins. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.