Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Bath

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 29, 2006PublishedCited by 72 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

JOHNSON, J.:

¶ 1 In this appeal, we consider whether the failure of counsel to consult with a defendant concerning whether to file a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel per se. In Commonwealth v. Liebel, 573 Pa. 375, 825 A.2d 630, 635 (2003), our Supreme Court determined that the failure of counsel to seek allowance of appeal constitutes ineffectiveness where the defendant requested counsel to file such a petition and counsel disregarded his request. The Court in Liebel did not address whether…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Roe v. Flores-OrtegaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Commonwealth v. KimballSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Commonwealth v. LantzySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Commonwealth v. LiebelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by72 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. NischanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Commonwealth v. OusleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Commonwealth v. RiggSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Commonwealth v. CarterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Commonwealth v. ScasseraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

67 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