Commonwealth v. Spells

How courts have described this case

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

• “[W]here the appellant knowingly and intelligently decided not to testify, based on conversations with his lawyer, and the colloquy with the trial judge, we find no ineffectiveness.”
• “[W]here the appellant knowingly and intelligently decided not to testify, based on conversations with his lawyer, and the colloquy with the trial judge, we find no ineffectiveness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. McNeil
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-02-08· cited 135×
• Commonwealth v. Lawson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-11-09· cited 74×
• Commonwealth v. Mizell
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-02-10· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. McKenna
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-06-30· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. Karabin
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-02-04· cited 22×
• Smith v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2002-06-12· cited 6×
• Commonwealth v. Garrity
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-02-21· cited 5×
• James P. v. Children & Youth Services
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-08-24· cited 2×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Bighum
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-07-02· cited 319×
• Commonwealth v. Musi
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1979-07-06· cited 132×
• Commonwealth v. Spells
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-01-28· cited 1×