Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Priovolos

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 23, 1998No. 139 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SAYLOR, Justice.

We allowed appeal in this case to determine whether the Superior Court erred in remanding the matter for a new hearing pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, on the basis that PCRA counsel who represented Appellee at the initial hearing was ineffective.

On January 19, 1990, a jury convicted Appellee Ernest H. Priovolos (“Priovolos”) of third degree murder and related offenses in connection with the death of Cheryl Sueca. 1 Priovolos’ trial counsel withdrew and new counsel filed post-verdict motions, alleging, inter alia, ineffective…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Commonwealth v. FinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Commonwealth v. TravagliaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Commonwealth v. MoralesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. FordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Commonwealth v. HenkelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Commonwealth v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Commonwealth v. LambertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

68 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