Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Commonwealth v. Bond

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 3, 2010No. 501 CAPPublished

Application for Reargument

1ConcurrenceChief Justice Castille

I join the denial of the application for reargument and write only to respond to appellant’s assertion, forwarded for the first time on reargument, that the claim he faults this Court for finding waived in fact was unwaivable. He further alleges that the claim “was explicitly and implicitly reached” by this Court even though we held it was waived and said nothing on the merits. This theory of “implicit and explicit” exhaustion of claims fails to acknowledge this Court’s rejection of the theory in Commonwealth v. VanDivner, 983 A.2d 1199, 1205 (Pa.2009).

In his direct appeal, appellant raised…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. CastilloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Bronshtein v. HornCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
  4. Commonwealth v. ChambersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Commonwealth v. BondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API