Commonwealth v. Liebel

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 challenging counsel's effectiveness for failing to file a petition for allowance of appeal is cognizable under PCRA
• holding that claim challenging counsel’s effectiveness for failing to file a petition for allowance of appeal is cognizable under PCRA
• recognizing that appellant has no federal right to counsel for purposes of discretionary appeal, but holding that in Pennsylvania there is a rule-based right
• recognizing that appellant has no federal right to counsel for purposes of discretionary appeal, but holding that in Pennsylvania there is a rule-based right
• holding that claim challenging counsel's effectiveness for failing to file a petition for allowance of appeal is cognizable under PCRA
• holding that a claim challenging counsel’s effectiveness on direct appeal for failing to file a petition for allowance of appeal is cognizable under the PCRA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).