Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Mitchell, W., Aplt.

Citations

  • 141 A.3d 1277
  • 636 Pa. 233
  • 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1535
  • 2016 WL 3909072

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the merits
  • reiterating that a petitioner seeking review of untimely PCRA claims must establish the PCRA court’s jurisdiction “by pleading and proving an exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement”
  • “[A] conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not a newly discovered ‘fact’ entitling Appellant to the benefit of the exception for newly- discovered facts.” (cleaned up)
  • emphasizing the PCRA court’s “exclusive prerogative to make credibility determinations”
  • following Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 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.