Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Corley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 8, 1984No. 44PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge:

This appeal is from the denial of a Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA) petition. Appellant argues that his arrest by security officers was illegal and that, consequently, the evidentiary fruits of that arrest would have been suppressed had the issue been raised pre-trial. His PCHA petition requested either discharge or a new trial on the grounds that he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel in that trial counsel withdrew a suppression motion. The PCHA petition was denied and we affirm.

Facts

The factual situation of appellant’s arrest is as follows. Appellant robbed an…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  4. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CorleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Kopko v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Western Pennsylvania Socialist Workers 1982 Campaign v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. In Re: Application of John CladerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Commonwealth v. Copenhaver v. Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

3 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