Commonwealth v. Rompilla

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over an appeal filed by an appellant who had been awarded a new penalty phase hearing and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to an agreement with the Commonwealth
• holding that Rompilla was not the type of defendant for whom this [J-57-2020] - 12 Court’s capital appeal jurisdiction exists since the trial court resentenced him to life imprisonment following a federal habeas grant of penalty-phase relief
• explaining that appellant’s failure to develop its arguments or support its bald assertions with sufficient citation to legal authority impedes meaningful judicial review of its claims
• explaining that appellant’s failure to adequately develop his arguments or support his assertions with sufficient citation to legal authority impedes meaningful judicial review of his claims
• distinguishing Bryant because it was a PCRA appeal where a new penalty-phase hearing was pending \and the prospect of a sentence of death remained\
• observing that this Court’s direct appellate jurisdiction over PCRA orders in capital matters “plainly does not encompass cases in which the death penalty was imposed at one time but subsequently was vacated and a judgment of sentence of life imprisonment was imposed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).