Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 4/17/2000

Commonwealth v. Pursell

Citations

749 A.2d 911
561 Pa. 214
2000 Pa. LEXIS 958

How courts have described this case

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

holding that untimely petition raising Mills claim was properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction
holding that claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness do not except a petitioner from the PCRA’s one-year filing deadline
holding that claims of PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness do not escape PCRA one-year time limitation merely because they are presented in terms of current counsel's discovery of \fact\ that previous attorney was ineffective
holding that untimely petition raising Mills claim was properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction
holding that claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness do not escape PCRA one-year time limitation merely because they are presented in terms of current counsel’s discovery of “fact” that previous attorney was ineffective
holding that claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness do not escape the PCRA one-year time limitation merely because they are presented in terms of current counsel’s discovery of the “fact” that a previous attorney was ineffective

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

6 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.