2001 Pa. Super. 229 - Commonwealth v. Touw’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2020
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega · Johnson v. COM., PA. BD. OF PROB. & PAR. · Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Lord · Commonwealth v. Lantzy
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ounsel has a constitutionally-imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are non-frivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing. In making this determination, courts must take into account all the information counsel knew or should have known. [Id. at 480, 120 S.Ct. 1029 ]. A deficient failure on the part of counsel to consult with the defendant does not automatically entitle the defendant to reinstatement of his or her appellate rights; the defendant must show prejudice. The [Roe ] Court held that “to show prejudice in these circumstances, a defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient failure to consult with him about an appeal, he would have timely appealed.” [I d.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Pursuant to this analysis, the Touw Court recognized as a cognizable claim under the PCRA an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to consult adequately with the petitioner about filing a direct appeal. This Court held that the PCRA court had abused its discretion in dismissing the petitioner’s claim without making adequate findings of fact as to whether counsel had adequately consulted with the petitioner about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal. The case was therefore remanded to the PCRA court for more findings of fact regarding counsel’s consultation, if any, with the petitioner about the filing of a direct appeal and, if necessary, a further evidentiary hearing on the matter. In adopting Roe , the Touw Court expanded a petitioner’s rights on direct appeal to include adequate consultation with counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If counsel has not consulted with the defendant, the court must in turn ask a second, and subsidiary, question: whether counsel’s failure to consult with the defendant itself constitutes deficient performance. That question lies at the heart of this case: Under what circumstances does counsel have an obligation to consult with the defendant about an appeal?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.