Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Perez

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 2002PublishedCited by 92 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKelly, J.

¶ 1 In this appeal we must determine whether counsel appointed to assist Appellant with his first PCRA petition provided meaningful representation, where appointed counsel filed an amended petition, but did not address the apparent untimeliness of Appellant’s petition or respond to the PCRA court’s notice of intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition as untimely. We hold that to provide meaningful representation, appointed counsel must at least address the timeliness of a PCRA petition and determine whether the petition fits any exception to the PCRA’s timeliness provision, where the subject…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. AlbrechtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Commonwealth v. YagerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Commonwealth v. GuthrieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

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

3Cited by92 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HenkelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Robert Jenkins v. Superintendent Laurel HighlandCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
  3. Commonwealth v. TaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Commonwealth v. RoaneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Commonwealth v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

87 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