Morris v. Beard

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that an evidentiary hearing is warranted only if there are “critical issues of material fact” that remain unresolved
• explaining that prior to October 20, 1998, Pennsylvania courts “refused to enforce procedural rules — such as the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations — in capital cases”
• applying the relaxed waiver rule to statute of limitations for PCRA appeals because the default occurred in 1996
• an evidentiary hearing is warranted if there are “critical issues of material fact that remain unresolved
• “[T]he absence of an on-the- record colloquy does not automatically preclude a valid waiver of a conflict of interest. Such a colloquy is the preferred course, however . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).