2015 Pa. Super. 107 - Commonwealth v. Perzel’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Busanet · Commonwealth v. Runion · Commonwealth v. Brown
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The governing legal' standard of review of ineffective assistance of counsel claims is well-settled: [C]ounsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must ’ demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). This Court has described the Strickland standard as tripartite by dividing the performance element into two distinct components. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973, 975 (1987). Accordingly, to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate that (1) the underlying legal issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel’s actiohs lacked ah objective reasonable basis; and (3) the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s act or omission. Id, A claim of ineffectiveness will be denied if the petitioner’s evidence fails to satisfy any one of these prongs. Commonwealth v. Busanet, 618 Pa. 1 , 54 A.3d 34 [35], 45 (2012) (citations formatted). Furthermore, “[i]n accord with these well-established . criteria for review, [an appellant] must set forth and individually discuss substantively each prong of the Pierce test.” Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald, 979 A.2d 908, 910 (Pa.Super.2009).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n accord with these well-established criteria for review, [an appellant] must set forth and individually discuss substantively each prong of the Pierce test.”
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.