Commonwealth v. Little
Little appealed the order denying his PCRA petition in which he alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve an issue for direct appeal relating to a restriction on
January 15, 2021
Little appealed the order denying his PCRA petition in which he alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve an issue for direct appeal relating to a restriction on
In Commonwealth v. Smith, the defendant was convicted of robbery and related offenses. After the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the convictions, he sought allocatur. Before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled
In Commonwealth v. Frame, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reaffirmed its allegiance to Commonwealth v. Reid, wherein the Supreme Court held that the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Williams v.
Friedland filed a PCRA petition and specifically requested that counsel not be appointed to represent him in his PCRA proceedings. After a Grazier hearing, the PCRA court granted Friedland’s request
In Commonwealth v. Hawkins, the defendant filed a PCRA petition, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion. After an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA
In Commonwealth v. Mojica, the defendant filed a pro se PCRA petition after he was convicted, but before sentencing, and while he was still represented by counsel. In the petition,
In Commonwealth v. Cox, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered an appeal from the denial of PCRA relief in a capital case. The defendant claimed he was intellectually disabled and could
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Small overruled its prior precedent and tossed the “public record presumption.” Traditionally, a defendant, who filed a PCRA petition, could circumvent the statutory one-year
In Commonwealth v. Smith, the PA Superior Court held that the defendant’s petition to remove himself from sex offender registration was not an untimely PCRA petition. Relying on Commonwealth v.
In Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, the PA Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the defendant’s writ of coram nobis. The Court held: 1. the defendant’s claim of judicial bias was cognizable
Copyright Sullivan Simon.
All rights reserved.