Matter of Chigusa Hosono D. v. Jason George D.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “when a petitioner files supplemental materials to a PCRA petition, and the PCRA court considers such materials, an attempt by the Commonwealth to preclude consideration of such materials fails” (cleaned up)
• concluding that the petitioner failed to meet the newly-discovered evidence exception where he presented an affidavit containing a hearsay confession by a third-party, but failed to present any proof that the declarant was unavailable as a witness
• holding that if a PCRA petitioner files an amendment to his petition without leave of court, but the PCRA court nonetheless addresses the arguments raised, the PCRA court has implicitly permitted the amendment and our review of the claim may proceed
• holding that where a source merely provides a starting point for a defendant to investigate and discover additional sources of new facts, that source does not constitute a newly discovered fact but may simply lead a defendant to a newly discovered fact
• noting that PCRA court implicitly permits amendment under Rule 905(A) when it does not strike supplement to PCRA petition and considers supplement when it addresses petitioner’s arguments
• concluding the order denying the appellant’s -7- J-S15024-26 motion for recusal was not a final order; the appeal properly lies from the subsequent dismissal of the appellant’s PCRA petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).