Commonwealth v. Soto

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that once a PCRA petitioner has completed the terms of his sentence, he or she is no longer eligible for PCRA relief; “the burden of proving a PCRA petitioner is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole rests on the petitioner”
• “The burden of proving that a petitioner is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole rests on the petitioner.”
• appellants failed to show nexus between their drug cases and chemists’ misconduct in lab for stealing pain pills, which occurred after appellants were convicted and, therefore, fails to establish new evidence would likely compel a different verdict.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Foreman
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-10-17· cited 134×
• Commonwealth v. Bean
  Berks County Court of Common Pleas· 2010-10-27

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Fahy
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-08-27· cited 1,072×
• Commonwealth v. D'Amato
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-09-02· cited 351×
• Commonwealth v. Ahlborn
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-08-19· cited 277×
• Commonwealth v. West
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-12-27· cited 119×
• Commonwealth v. Rivera
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-12-03· cited 80×