7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goldberg v. Kellygreen2 sentences1994See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 494 Pa. 461 , 431 A.2d 946 (1981) (both cases applying criminal due process requirements to administrative proceedings). 1994See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 494 Pa. 461 , 431 A.2d 946 (1981) (both cases applying criminal due process requirements to administrative proceedings). | 2 | 2 |
Com. v. Muhammed, Y.green1 sentence2020In the alternative, Scott complains that if one were to assume that paying restitution on nolle prossed charges was part of his plea agreement, the agreement cannot be enforced because according to Commonwealth v. Rivera, 154 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2017), a “defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence, so the fact that the illegality was a term of his plea bargain is of no legal significance.” Id., at 381 .9 As Scott’s claim concerns the legality of his sentence, see Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1212, our standard of review regarding the matter is as follows: It is well settled that a challenge to th | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dodgegreen1 sentence2019As stated above, the sentencing court imposed a sentence within the guidelines for Indecent Assault because the minimum sentence was one year and a mitigated sentence for Corruption of Minors because Scott received five years’ probation. [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence. -3- J-S40039-19 Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d-1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). .See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 (“The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appeal. 2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d 1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). [5] See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 ("The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appe | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences1995See Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Cmwlth. 132 , 498 A.2d 1007 (1985) (remand for a new hearing appropriate where hearsay evidence improperly admitted over parolee’s objection); Grello v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 83 Pa.Cmwlth. 252 , 477 A.2d 45 (1984) (same). 1995See Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Cmwlth. 132 , 498 A.2d 1007 (1985) (remand for a new hearing appropriate where hearsay evidence improperly admitted over parolee’s objection); Grello v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 83 Pa.Cmwlth. 252 , 477 A.2d 45 (1984) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Police
green
2 sentences1994See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 494 Pa. 461 , 431 A.2d 946 (1981) (both cases applying criminal due process requirements to administrative proceedings). 1994See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 494 Pa. 461 , 431 A.2d 946 (1981) (both cases applying criminal due process requirements to administrative proceedings). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Commonwealth v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2020In the alternative, Scott complains that if one were to assume that paying restitution on nolle prossed charges was part of his plea agreement, the agreement cannot be enforced because according to Commonwealth v. Rivera, 154 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2017), a “defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence, so the fact that the illegality was a term of his plea bargain is of no legal significance.” Id., at 381 .9 As Scott’s claim concerns the legality of his sentence, see Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1212, our standard of review regarding the matter is as follows: It is well settled that a challenge to th 2020In the alternative, Scott complains that if one were to assume that paying restitution on nolle prossed charges was part of his plea agreement, the agreement cannot be enforced because according to Commonwealth v. Rivera, 154 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2017), a “defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence, so the fact that the illegality was a term of his plea bargain is of no legal significance.” Id., at 381 .9 As Scott’s claim concerns the legality of his sentence, see Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1212, our standard of review regarding the matter is as follows: It is well settled that a challenge to th | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Descares
green
1 sentence2018The fact that Scott’s claim was not pursued does not change the fact that it could have been raised under the PCRA.6 Descardes, supra. We find no error. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Brandon
green
1 sentence2018Lawson, supra; Brandon, supra. Scott’s petition is untimely, without exception, and thus the PCRA had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Lawson
green
1 sentence2018Lawson, supra; Brandon, supra. Scott’s petition is untimely, without exception, and thus the PCRA had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d-1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). .See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 (“The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appeal. 2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d 1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). [5] See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 ("The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appe | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Pierce v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d-1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). .See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 (“The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appeal. 2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d-1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). .See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 (“The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appeal. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Werner v. Zazyczny
green
2 sentences2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d-1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). .See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 (“The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appeal. 2010Pa.R.A.P. 1513; Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 , 681 A.2d 1331 (1996); Siers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 725 A.2d 220 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 562 Pa. 678 , 753 A.2d 822 (Pa.1999); Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 507 , 406 A.2d 1186 (1979). [5] See also Scott, 739 A.2d at 1145-1146 ("The reason, we presume, that our Supreme Court denied Scott's motion was because the proper procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a petition before the Board, even if the case is on appe | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Grello v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences1995See Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Cmwlth. 132 , 498 A.2d 1007 (1985) (remand for a new hearing appropriate where hearsay evidence improperly admitted over parolee’s objection); Grello v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 83 Pa.Cmwlth. 252 , 477 A.2d 45 (1984) (same). 1995See Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Cmwlth. 132 , 498 A.2d 1007 (1985) (remand for a new hearing appropriate where hearsay evidence improperly admitted over parolee’s objection); Grello v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 83 Pa.Cmwlth. 252 , 477 A.2d 45 (1984) (same). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.