Commonwealth v. Murray
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NIGRO, Justice.
We granted allocatur in the instant case to determine whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the dismissal of Appellant’s pro se Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq., petition as untimely filed without first holding an evidentiary hearing regarding his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely direct appeal to the Superior Court on his behalf. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On June 26, 1995, a jury convicted Appellant of burglary and recklessly endangering another person. On November 5, 1995,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FahySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. LantzySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. PeterkinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Commonwealth v. BeasleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. StockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by328 opinions
- Commonwealth v. CarrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Commonwealth v. HernandezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. LawsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Commonwealth v. EdmistonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
323 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.