Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Commonwealth v. Fowler

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 15, 2006Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION BY

KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 I agree with a great deal of the majority opinion, but have a problem with a footnote in the case, in which it is indicated that under Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102 (Pa.Super.2005), there is sufficient evidence by looking at the “totality of the circumstances” to show that Fowler was aware of the elements of the crime. Instead, I believe that at a PCRA hearing, new counsel should be appointed to layer an ineffectiveness claim against post-sentence motion counsel for waiving Fowler’s best arguments — that Fowler was never advised as to the elements…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Commonwealth v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Commonwealth v. MorrisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Commonwealth v. WillisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

5 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