Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an allegation that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to present available claims does not excuse compliance with the timeliness requirements of the PCRA
• holding that ineffectiveness of counsel claims generally do not constitute an exception to the PCRA time requirements
• holding that ineffectiveness of counsel claims generally do not constitute exceptions to PCRA time requirements
• holding that ineffectiveness of counsel claims generally do not constitute exceptions to PCRA time requirements
• holding that prior PCRA counsel’s failure to develop an issue was not a previously unknown fact under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)
• holding that a claim of ineffectiveness does not constitute a “fact” for purposes of the timeliness exception allowed by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).