Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Auchmuty

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 16, 2002PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHester, Senior J.

¶ 1 Mary E. Auchmuty appeals from the August 1, 2001 order denying her pro se petition for PCRA relief. Since the PCRA court has not filed a Rule 1925 opinion, we are unable to assess the validity of the basis for denial. However, our independent review of the record reveals that Appellant has waived all issues on appeal due to her failure to comply with the trial court’s directive to file a Rule 1925®) statement. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998). Further, we find Appellant is not eligible for PCRA relief due to the fact she testified she was no longer serving a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Commonwealth v. AhlbornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Commonwealth v. GuthrieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Commonwealth v. PriovolosSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Commonwealth v. ButlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Commonwealth v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Schaefer v. AAMES CAPITAL CORPORATIONSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Com. v. Bieber, E.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022
  5. Com. v. Bieber, E.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022

21 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