Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2/6/2015

Commonwealth v. Brown

Citations

111 A.3d 171
2015 Pa. Super. 24
2015 WL 500891
2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 35

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that newspaper articles referencing misconduct by detectives in matters unrelated to appellant do not constitute newly-discovered facts
holding that absent a timely PCRA petition or the demonstrated eligibility for a PCRA time-bar exception, “the PCRA court has no power to address the substantive merits of the [Appellant]’s PCRA claims.”
affirming that petitioner has to allege newly-discovered fact and demonstrate that that he could not have learned that fact with the exercise of due diligence
holding facially untimely PCRA petitioner attempting to raise substantive after-discovered-evidence claim must first establish jurisdiction by pleading and proving exception to PCRA time-bar
holding facially untimely PCRA petitioner attempting to raise substantive after-discovered-evidence claim must first establish jurisdiction by pleading and proving exception to PCRA time-bar
holding facially untimely PCRA petitioner attempting to raise substantive after-discovered-evidence claim must first establish jurisdiction by pleading and proving exception to PCRA time-bar

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gantman, Jenkins, Musmanno

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Brown

592 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.