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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2022 1 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. Spotzgreen2 sentences2019See [Commonwealth v.] Spotz, [ 870 A.2d 822, 834 (Pa. 2005)]. 2018See Spotz, supra . | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Lantzygreen2 sentences2015Where, as in the instant case, the claim is counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal, Pennsylvania utilizes a per se ineffectiveness test, Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 571 (Pa. 1999) (“a failure to file or perfect [a direct] appeal results in a denial so fundamental as to constitute prejudice per se”), so long as an appellant establishes that he “requested [counsel to file] an appeal and that counsel disregarded the request.” Commonwealth v. Hudson, 485 A.2d 487, 489 (Pa. Super. 1984). 2014See Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 571 (Pa. 1999). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Cronicgreen2 sentences2022Appellant claims that the prejudice he suffered should be presumed but fails to address Cronic or any other authority supporting the application of ____________________________________________ 1 United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). -6- J-S23001-22 the per se ineffectiveness analysis to the instant matter. 2018See United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Hudsongreen1 sentence2015Where, as in the instant case, the claim is counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal, Pennsylvania utilizes a per se ineffectiveness test, Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 571 (Pa. 1999) (“a failure to file or perfect [a direct] appeal results in a denial so fundamental as to constitute prejudice per se”), so long as an appellant establishes that he “requested [counsel to file] an appeal and that counsel disregarded the request.” Commonwealth v. Hudson, 485 A.2d 487, 489 (Pa. Super. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mitchell, Dennis L.green1 sentence2012See, e.g., U.S. v. Mitchell, 216 F.3d 1126, 1132 (D.C.Cir.2000) (“We decline appellant’s invitation to extend the per se ineffectiveness rule be yond those cases in which a defendant is represented by a person never properly admitted to any bar.”) (emphasis added); Cole v. U.S., 162 F.3d 957, 958 (7th Cir.1998) (“Only where the attorney had never been admitted to practice before any court at all, and thus should be considered a non-lawyer, have courts found per se violations of the right to counsel.”) (citation omitted and emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Parrish Cole v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., U.S. v. Mitchell, 216 F.3d 1126, 1132 (D.C.Cir.2000) (“We decline appellant’s invitation to extend the per se ineffectiveness rule be yond those cases in which a defendant is represented by a person never properly admitted to any bar.”) (emphasis added); Cole v. U.S., 162 F.3d 957, 958 (7th Cir.1998) (“Only where the attorney had never been admitted to practice before any court at all, and thus should be considered a non-lawyer, have courts found per se violations of the right to counsel.”) (citation omitted and emphasis added). | 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. Postie
green
1 sentence2019We “decline[d] to adopt a per se ineffectiveness standard for a violation of Rule 646(C)” because “Pennsylvania law does not support that precedent.” Id. at 1029 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Liebel
green
2 sentences2014However, I respectfully dissent because I would conclude that Appellant properly pleaded a per se ineffectiveness claim under Commonwealth v. Liebel, 573 Pa. 375 , 825 A.2d 630 (2003). 2014However, I respectfully dissent because I would conclude that Appellant properly pleaded a per se ineffectiveness claim under Commonwealth v. Liebel, 573 Pa. 375 , 825 A.2d 630 (2003). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.