2012 Pa. Super. 199 - Commonwealth v. Rykard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. of Pa. v. Diaz · 2016 Pa. Super. 117 - Commonwealth v. Ward-Green

2. “Rule 907. Disposition Without Hearing Except as provided in Rule 909 for death penalty cases, (1) the judge shall promptly review the petition, any answer by the attorney for the Commonwealth, and. other matters of record relating to the defendant’s elaim(s). If the judge is satisfied from this review that there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact and that the defendant is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, the judge shall give notice to the parties of the intention to dismiss the petition and shall state in the notice the reasons for the dismissal. The defendant may respond to the proposed dismissal within 20 days of the daté of the notice. The judge thereafter shall order the petition dismissed, grant leave to file an amended petition, or direct that the proceedings continue. [[Image here]] (4) When the petition is dismissed without a hearing, the judge promptly shall issue an order to that effect and shall advise the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the right to appeal from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time limits within which the appeal must be filed. The order shall be filed and served- as provided in Rule 114.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Smith

3. “Commonwealth v. Maple , [ 385 Pa.Super. 14 , 559 A.2d 953 (1989) ], forbids appointment of new counsel where a proper Turner 6 / Finley no-merit letter has been accepted and counsel was permitted to withdraw. Maple, supra at 956 ("when counsel has been appointed to represent a petitioner in post-conviction proceedings as a matter of right under the rules of criminal procedure and when that right has been fully vindicated by counsel being permitted to withdraw under the procedure authorized in Turner , new counsel shall not be appointed and the petitioner, or appellant, must thereafter look to his or her own resources for whatever further proceedings there might be.")”

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