8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2023 3 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. Fahygreen2 sentences2019While 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)). 2015Moreover, while 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)). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2019While 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)). 2015Moreover, while 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)). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Jettegreen1 sentence2023See also Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (petitioner’s pro se motion filed while petitioner represented by counsel is impermissible hybrid representation). “[I]ndeed, [such] pro se motion[s] have no legal effect, and, therefore, are legal nullities.” See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 623 (Pa. Super. 2016). 5 The pro se petition alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel, a constitutional violation, after-discovered evidence, and an illegality of sentence claim. 6 On March 5, 2019, counsel filed a motion to reinstate Steele’s appellate rights nunc pro tunc due to counsel’ | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Holmesgreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 60 (Pa. Super. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2023See also Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (petitioner’s pro se motion filed while petitioner represented by counsel is impermissible hybrid representation). “[I]ndeed, [such] pro se motion[s] have no legal effect, and, therefore, are legal nullities.” See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 623 (Pa. Super. 2016). 5 The pro se petition alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel, a constitutional violation, after-discovered evidence, and an illegality of sentence claim. 6 On March 5, 2019, counsel filed a motion to reinstate Steele’s appellate rights nunc pro tunc due to counsel’ | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dotygreen1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 456 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bryantgreen1 sentence2018See id. at 1138; see also Bryant, supra at 647- 48 (holding that in capital case an order dismissing all claims but granting resentencing is final appealable order and failing to appeal that order within thirty days would result in waiver); Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 , 1039 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 574 (Pa. 2017) (holding that order directing resentencing pursuant to Alleyne, supra, but denying PCRA relief on all other issues was final appealable order). -8- J-S16033-18 Here, as in Groves and Watley, the PCRA court denied all of Appellant’s claims but the illeg | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alleyne v. United States
green
2 sentences2018The first amended PCRA petition raised a variety of claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, while the second amended PCRA petition raised a single illegality of sentence claim pursuant to Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). 2018See id. at 1138; see also Bryant, supra at 647- 48 (holding that in capital case an order dismissing all claims but granting resentencing is final appealable order and failing to appeal that order within thirty days would result in waiver); Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 , 1039 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 574 (Pa. 2017) (holding that order directing resentencing pursuant to Alleyne, supra, but denying PCRA relief on all other issues was final appealable order). -8- J-S16033-18 Here, as in Groves and Watley, the PCRA court denied all of Appellant’s claims but the illeg | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Bomar
green
1 sentence2021Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 , 851 n.16 (Pa. 2003); see also 42 Pa.C.S. 9711(c)(1)–(2) (describing process for weighing 12 As an alternative to waiver of this issue by trial and appellate counsel, Hairston raises the same argument in the context of an illegality of sentence challenge, arguing that his sentence is illegal because the verdict slip reflected that the jury based its sentence on a non-statutory aggravating circumstance. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Watley
green
1 sentence2018See id. at 1138; see also Bryant, supra at 647- 48 (holding that in capital case an order dismissing all claims but granting resentencing is final appealable order and failing to appeal that order within thirty days would result in waiver); Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 , 1039 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 574 (Pa. 2017) (holding that order directing resentencing pursuant to Alleyne, supra, but denying PCRA relief on all other issues was final appealable order). -8- J-S16033-18 Here, as in Groves and Watley, the PCRA court denied all of Appellant’s claims but the illeg | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Watley
green
1 sentence2018See id. at 1138; see also Bryant, supra at 647- 48 (holding that in capital case an order dismissing all claims but granting resentencing is final appealable order and failing to appeal that order within thirty days would result in waiver); Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 , 1039 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 574 (Pa. 2017) (holding that order directing resentencing pursuant to Alleyne, supra, but denying PCRA relief on all other issues was final appealable order). -8- J-S16033-18 Here, as in Groves and Watley, the PCRA court denied all of Appellant’s claims but the illeg | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Carpenter
green
1 sentence2015Carpenter, supra. In his third claim, Appellant asserts that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a remand of his case while his allowance of appeal was pending so that he could raise an illegality of sentence claim under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). | 1 | 2015–2015 |