Commonwealth v. Sanchez

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a petitioner is required to show how the newly discovered facts could not have been ascertained sooner with the exercise of due diligence
• concluding the petitioner had failed to show due diligence where he did not explain how the facts “could not have been ascertained sooner by the exercise of due diligence”
• concluding the petitioner had failed to show due diligence where he did not explain how the facts “could not have been ascertained sooner by the exercise of due diligence”
• concluding the petitioner had failed to show due diligence where he did not explain how the facts “could not have been ascertained sooner by the exercise of due diligence”
• concluding the petitioner had failed to show due diligence where he did not explain how the facts “could not have been -4- J-S41032-24 ascertained sooner by the exercise of due diligence”
• concluding the petitioner - 14 - J-A28043-25 failed to show due diligence where he did not explain how the facts “could not have been ascertained sooner by the exercise of due diligence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Com. v. Mickeals, I.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-04-16· cited 2×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Brown
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-02-06· cited 618×
• Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-06-19· cited 603×
• Commonwealth v. Robinson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-10-22· cited 552×
• Commonwealth v. Foreman
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-10-17· cited 134×
• Commonwealth v. Alcorn
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-12-17· cited 132×