Commonwealth v. Stokes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JUSTICE EAKIN.
Ralph Trent Stokes appeals from the order denying his petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.1
Appellant alleges trial court error, and ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. Specifically, appellant asserts PCRA relief was improperly denied where:2 (1) the trial court’s jury instructions violated Mills v. Maryland;3 (2) all prior counsel were ineffective for not obtaining the notes of testimony of voir dire to determine whether the prosecutor engaged in racial discrimination during jury selection;…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Mills v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Commonwealth v. TravagliaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. KimballSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. McGillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. BraceySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. ChmielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. ChmielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Commonwealth v. DiggsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Commonwealth v. CarsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.