Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Court Cases

Search
  1. Com. v. Turner (1988)

    This case requires us to set forth the appropriate procedures for the withdrawal of court-appointed counsel in collateral attacks on criminal convictions. We deem it advisable to establish a procedure which is less cumbersome than that set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981), which apply only in direct appeals from convictions.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  2. Com. v. Pierce (1987)

    In this appeal, once again we are required to consider the standard for analyzing ineffectiveness of counsel claims and are specifically asked to compare our previously announced standard of Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967), with the United States Supreme Court standard set forth in its recent decision of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  3. Com. v. Grant (2002)

    This court granted the instant appeal to consider whether the Superior Court erred in failing to remand Appellant's claims related to prosecutorial misconduct and trial counsel ineffectiveness for an evidentiary hearing to the trial court. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  4. Com. v. Widmer (2000)

    This appeal presents the question of whether the Superior Court erred in reversing the trial court's decision to grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant challenges both the scope and standard of review utilized by the Superior Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Superior Court.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  5. Com. v. Lord (1998)

    In this criminal case, the issue before the Court is whether Pa. R.Crim. P. 1410 precludes an appellate court from deeming an issue waived when an Appellant fails to raise that issue in his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P.1925(b).


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  6. Com. v. Fahy (1999)

    This is a direct appeal[1] from the order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas which denied Appellant Henry Fahy's request for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA").[2] For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order of the PCRA court dismissing Appellant's fourth petition for collateral relief.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  7. Commonwealth v. Albrecht (1998)

    This is a direct appeal from the final order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County denying Appellant's petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).[1] For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the order of the PCRA court.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Docket: Decided November 23, 1998
  8. Com. v. McClendon (1981)

    We are called upon to assess whether the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976) have been met in the instant matter. Specifically, we must consider counsel's request to withdraw and determine what, if any, rights appellant may have as to further representation.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  9. Com. v. Grazier (1998)

    This is an appeal from a memorandum decision of Superior Court which affirmed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County denying a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq.[1]


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  10. Com. v. Zettlemoyer (1982)

    This appeal raises the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty which sentence was imposed by a jury upon Keith Zettlemoyer, appellant, pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 9711 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. ž 9711.[1] For the reasons stated herein, we affirm appellant's conviction for murder of the first degree, find the sentencing procedures to be valid under both the federal and state constitutions, and uphold the sentence of death.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  11. Com. v. Bennett (2007)

    The issue before the Court is whether Appellant is entitled to reinstatement of his Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA")[1] appeal rights nunc pro tunc in a second PCRA petition, filed more than one year after the date his judgment of sentence became final, when his original PCRA appeal was dismissed because of PCRA counsel's failure to file a brief. The Superior Court quashed Appellant's appeal as untimely. For the following reasons, the order of the Superior Court is vacated and this matter is [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  12. Com. v. Tuladziecki (1987)

    The Appellant, Regis Tuladziecki, pleaded guilty to violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), (30), arising out of the possession of Percodan, Preludin, and Quaalude tablets and the delivery of cocaine and Percodan to an informant. As to four of the charges the trial court adjudged Tuladziecki guilty without further penalty, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9753. On the charge of selling Percodan tablets, the court imposed a sentence of $1,000 fine and [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  13. Com. v. Mouzon (2002)

    The issue presented in the instant appeal is whether the Superior Court erred in refusing to review Appellant Jerome Mouzon's challenge to the discretionary aspects of his criminal sentence based upon its conclusion that his claim of excessiveness failed to raise a substantial question as a matter of law because his sentence was within the statutory limits. As we find the Superior Court erred, we reverse.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  14. Com. v. Johnson (2009)

    The Commonwealth appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County ("PCRA court") overturning the verdict of guilt and sentence of death, and awarding appellee Raymond Johnson a new trial pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. The court granted relief premised upon a finding that trial counsel were ineffective in various respects relating to the investigation and presentation of the defense at both the guilt and penalty phases. In [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Docket: 529 CAP
  15. STAND. VENE. BLIND CO. v. Am. Empire Ins. (1983)

    This appeal presents the question of whether appellee Standard Venetian Blind Company (Venetian), the insured under a policy of liability insurance issued by appellant American Empire Insurance Company (American), may avoid the effect of a clear and unambiguous exclusion clause in the insurance contract by showing that it was neither made aware of nor understood the effect of the exclusion. We conclude that the lack of knowledge or understanding of a clearly drafted exclusion clause in a [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  16. Com. v. Gamboa-Taylor (2000)

    This is an appeal from the denial of the second petition of Paul Gamboa-Taylor (Appellant) for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Because Appellant's petition is untimely, we affirm the trial court.


    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  17. Com. v. Walls (2007)

    In this appeal we are asked to consider whether the Superior Court erred in making certain legal determinations leading it to vacate the judgment of sentence imposed by the sentencing court with respect to Appellee William Theodore Walls. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Superior Court did err. In addressing the nature of these errors, we clarify the proper standard of appellate review of a sentencing court's imposition of sentence. Ultimately, we remand this matter to the Superior [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  18. Com. v. Castillo (2005)

    Should this Court reconsider its decisions in Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998), and Commonwealth v. Butler, 571 Pa. 441, 812 A.2d 631 (2002), so as to allow discretion in the intermediate appellate courts to review an issue that was not raised in a timely statement of matters complained of on appeal under Pa.R.A.P.1925(b);[1] if so, what standards should be imposed to guide such discretion.

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  19. Com. v. Pitts (2009)

    The Commonwealth appeals from the Superior Court's order vacating the order denying appellee, Dexter Pitts, relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq., dismissing Pitts's PCRA petition, and granting PCRA counsel's request to withdraw; the Superior Court remanded for the filing of an amended PCRA petition. Finding the Superior Court erred in concluding PCRA counsel did not comply with the dictates of Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Docket: 3 EAP 2008
  20. Com. v. Edmunds (1991)

    The issue presented to this court is whether Pennsylvania should adopt the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). We conclude that a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule would frustrate the guarantees embodied in Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, the decision of the Superior Court is reversed.

    Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

1 of 1938 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5