2004 Pa. Super. 58 - Commonwealth v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Hubbard · Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Bomar · Commonwealth v. Mitchell · Commonwealth v. Oliver
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Presently, Appellant’s ineffectiveness claims were first raised in his post-sentence motions. However, the trial court did not hold a hearing and the motions were denied by operation of law. Thus, we do not have a record from which we can review Appellant’s claims. We recognize that the Comment to Pa. R.Crim.P. 720 requires an evidentiary hearing where new counsel raises claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in a post-sentence motion. However, the precedent for this requirement is Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259 , 372 A.2d 687 (1977), which was specifically overruled by Grant, 813 A.2d at 737 . Although we think the better practice is for the trial court to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing where ineffectiveness claims are raised in post-sentence motions, we cannot conclude that such a hearing is required in view of the Supreme Court’s explicit overruling of Hubbard by Grant . In its post-Grant cases, the Supreme Court has made clear its “strong preference ... to postpone review of all ineffectiveness claims to the collateral process .... ” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 576 Pa. 258 , 839 A.2d 202 (2003). See also Commonwealth v. Overby, 575 Pa. 227 , 836 A.2d 20 (2003) (ineffectiveness raised in 1925(b) statement; although case remanded for opinion, no evidentia-ry hearing held so Grant not Bomar applies); Commonwealth v. Belak, 573 Pa. 414 , 825 A.2d 1252 (2003) (Bomar does not apply where ineffectiveness claims first raised in 1925(b) statement and trial court refused to”
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.