Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 12/27/2005

Commonwealth v. Miller

Citations

888 A.2d 624
585 Pa. 144
2005 Pa. LEXIS 2997

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the burden in a PCRA motion is on the petitioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, one or more of the grounds set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2}, (3), and (4)
explaining that a determination of intellectual disability requires proof of three elements: limited intellectual functioning, significant adaptive limitations, and onset prior to age 18
explaining that a determination of intellectual disability requires proof of three elements: limited intellectual functioning, significant adaptive limitations, and onset prior to age 18
noting that Atkins would qualify for retroactive application under first Teague exception
noting that Atkins would qualify for retroactive application under first Teague exception
explaining that “we do not adopt a cutoff IQ score for determining mental retardation in Pennsylvania, since it is the interaction between limited intellectual functioning and deficiencies in adaptive skills that establishes mental retardation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.