Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Commonwealth v. Rivera
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided January 18, 2017No. 1423 EDA 2015PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
BOWES, J.:
I agree with my learned colleagues that the order reinstating the direct appeal rights of Appellee Andre Rivera should be affirmed. On the other hand, I also believe, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, that counsel was ineffective during her negotiation of the guilty plea, and that it is inconsistent to conclude that counsel’s advice during the guilty plea was sound whereas her failure to consult Appellee about an appeal was not,
The pertinent facts follow. At criminal case number 1917-2013, the Commonwealth charged Appellee with twelve…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Roe v. Flores-OrtegaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Commonwealth v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. HickmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Com. v. Conklin, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022