Commonwealth v. Wiles, D.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “without any argument from [a]ppellant setting forth any facts at all[,]” the court could not grant relief
• recognizing newly-discovered fact exception implicated where petitioner never received notice of Rule 907 order dismissing previous petition
• explaining that “[t]here is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition” (citation omitted)
• stating that an appellant must file an appeal within thirty days of an order reinstating their appeal rights
• explaining that “[t]here is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition” (citation omitted)
• finding that ordinarily in Rule 600 context the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing due diligence; however, upon collateral review, Appellant bears the burden of showing merit and prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).