453 Pa. Super. 193 - Commonwealth v. Kimball’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Initially, we consider what standard of review is applicable to claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686-87 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 692-98 (1984), the United States Supreme Court set forth the following standard to be applied on direct appeal or in federal collateral proceedings when considering whether counsel was ineffective: The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. * * * * * * [To demonstrate that counsel was ineffective] the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. ... [T]he defendant must [also] show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction ... resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. (Emphasis added). Our supreme court adopted this standard in Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1987).”

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

2. “[Appellant must demonstrate that] (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel’s performance was unreasonable; and (3) counsel’s ineffectiveness prejudiced defendant.”

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

3. “A determination that counsel's ineffectiveness would have resulted in a different outcome necessarily renders the truth-determining process unreliable.”

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