Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 4/29/2010

Commonwealth v. Colavita

Citations

993 A.2d 874
606 Pa. 1
2010 Pa. LEXIS 939

How courts have described this case

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

holding that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on substantive due process could not be raised sua sponte by the Superior Court
holding that, generally, “[w]here the parties fail to preserve an issue for appeal, the Superior Court may not address that issue sua sponte”
holding that, generally, “[w]here the parties fail to preserve an issue for appeal, the Superior Court may not address that issue sua sponte”
stating that “[w]here the parties fail to preserve an issue for appeal, the Superior Court 8 We acknowledge that (1
holding the Superior Court erred in finding counsel’s trial strategy per se unreasonable based on the record alone
explaining that a Strickland ineffectiveness finding cannot be premised on hindsight evaluation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Melvin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

59 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

62 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Colavita

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.