2003 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Malone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31 , 720 A.2d 693, 700 (1998), our Supreme Court recognized that a PCRA petitioner’s right to appointed counsel, guaranteed by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 904 (formerly 1504), requires “an enforceable right to effective post-conviction counsel.” Therefore, PCRA counsel’s assistance may be examined on appeal from the denial of PCRA relief. Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233 , 724 A.2d 293, 303 (1999). Claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness must be raised at the first opportunity at .which the defendant is represented by counsel other than the attorney whose effectiveness is challenged. Id. at 302 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 474 - Commonwealth v. Gallman

2. “We can discern no reasonable basis for PCRA counsel's failure to comply with the pleading requirements of the PCRA and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the record before us is limited, we are convinced that, had PCRA counsel complied with those requirements, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. In this case, that outcome would have been the grant of an evidentiary hearing on Malone's claims regarding an allegedly defective plea colloquy and whether plea counsel should have objected to the colloquy or moved to withdraw Malone's plea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Grayson

3. “To prevail on a claim alleging counsel’s ineffectiveness under the PCRA, Appellant must demonstrate (1) that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel’s course of conduct was without any reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interest; and (3) that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that but for the act or omission in question the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 420 - Commonwealth v. Carter