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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2019 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. Rochegreen2 sentences2019Commonwealth v. Roche, 153 A.3d 1063, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2017). 2019Roche, 153 A.3d at 1072 . | 3 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Tyackgreen2 sentences2019Roche, 153 A.3d at 1072 (holding that where Roche was convicted of first -degree murder and criminal conspiracy, a concise statement asserting only that the evidence was insufficient to sustain these convictions resulted in waiver); Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that Tyack's "boilerplate" concise statement declaring "that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction" was too vague even where Tyack was convicted only of one crime). 2018Roche, 153 A.3d at 1072 (holding that where Roche was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal conspiracy, a concise statement asserting only that the evidence was insufficient to sustain these convictions resulted in waiver); Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that Tyack’s “boilerplate” concise statement declaring “that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction” was too vague even where Tyack was convicted only of one crime); but see Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa. 2007) (holding that this Court erred in concluding Laboy had | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Watsongreen1 sentence2016Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 801 (Pa.Super. 2003). -5- J-S41043-16 In his brief, Appellant raises the following issue for our review: Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred by denying [Appellant] grant of an appeal nunc pro tunc because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for reconsideration of sentence that was in the aggravated guideline range and this issue was waived for appellate review. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wrecksgreen1 sentence2016Thus, the instant PCRA petition is timely. 4 While this Court has determined a claim challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not cognizable under the PCRA, Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa.Super. 2007), we have held that a claim regarding the discretionary aspects of a sentence raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim is cognizable under the PCRA. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Laboygreen1 sentence2018Roche, 153 A.3d at 1072 (holding that where Roche was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal conspiracy, a concise statement asserting only that the evidence was insufficient to sustain these convictions resulted in waiver); Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that Tyack’s “boilerplate” concise statement declaring “that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction” was too vague even where Tyack was convicted only of one crime); but see Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa. 2007) (holding that this Court erred in concluding Laboy had | 1 | 1 |
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.