2011 Pa. Super. 184 - Commonwealth v. Markowitz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) Exception. — Even if the petitioner has met the requirements of subsection (a), the petition shall be dismissed if it appears at any time that, because of delay in filing the petition, the Commonwealth has been prejudiced either in its ability to respond to the petition or in its ability to re-try the petitioner. A petition may be dismissed due to delay in the filing by the petitioner only after a hearing upon a motion to dismiss. This subsection does not apply if the petitioner shows that the petition is based on grounds of which the petitioner could not have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the delay became prejudicial to the Commonwealth.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 249 - Commonwealth v. Swartzfager

2. “To establish per se ineffectiveness, a defendant must still prove that he asked counsel to file a direct appeal.” Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706, 715 (Pa.Super.2011), citing Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250 (Pa.Super.2001). In this case, the PCRA court found that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 208 - Commonwealth v. Callahan

3. “[T]he PCRA court is only permitted to address issues raised in a counseled petition.”

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