2011 Pa. Super. 276 - Commonwealth v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) states, in relevant part: "Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that [...] the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section [...]." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) (emphasis added). Thus, in order to fit under this exception to the PCRA's time bar, a PCRA petitioner must assert relief based on a constitutional right that has been affirmatively recognized by either the United States Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [ Commonwealth v.] Abdul-Salaam, 571 Pa. [219,] 226, 812 A.2d [497,] 501 (2002) ] (holding that for relief pursuant to § 9545(b)(1)(iii), the right asserted by the petitioner must be a constitutional right acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States [or] the Pennsylvania Supreme Court); see also Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 596 Pa. 104 , 110, 941 A.2d 646 , 649 (2007).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 106 - Commonwealth v. Ross

2. “For purposes of deciding whether the timeliness exception to the PCRA based on the creation of a new constitutional right is applicable, the distinction between the holding of a case and its rationale is crucial since only a precise creation of a constitutional right can afford a petitioner relief.... [T]he rationale used by the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the evaluation of a § 9545(b)(1)(iii) timeliness exception to the PCRA, as the right must be one that has been expressly recognized by either the Pennsylvania or United States Supreme Court. Thus, for the purpose of the timeliness exception to the PCRA, only the holding of the case is relevant.”

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

3. “[T]he prisoner mailbox rule provides that a pro se prisoner's document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.”

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