2002 Pa. Super. 152 - Commonwealth v. Hickman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A criminal defendant has the right to effective counsel during a plea process as well as during a trial. Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused the defendant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea. Commonwealth v. Allen , 557 Pa. 135 , 732 A.2d 582 (1999). Where the defendant enters his plea on the advice of counsel, "the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel's advice 'was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.' " Hill , 474 U.S. at 56 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (quoting McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759 , 771, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Johnson · 2003 Pa. Super. 367 - Commonwealth v. Allen

2. “[I]n order to satisfy the “prejudice” requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. In many guilty plea cases, the “prejudice” inquiry will closely resemble the inquiry engaged in by courts reviewing ineffective-assistance challenges to convictions obtained through a trial. For example, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to investigate or discover potentially exculpatory evidence, the determination whether the error “prejudiced” the defendant by causing him to plead guilty rather than go to trial will depend on the likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change his recommendation as to the plea. This assessment, in turn, will depend in large part on a prediction whether the evidence likely would have changed the outcome of a trial. Similarly, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the “prejudice” inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 140 - Commonwealth v. Patterson · 2006 Pa. Super. 106 - Commonwealth v. Rathfon

3. “To be eligible for relief under this sub-chapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following: (2) That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following: (ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilty or innocence could have taken place.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth v. Lynch