Commonwealth v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 114 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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) Time for filing petition.— (1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) 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 and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. (2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. (3) For purposes of this subchapter, a judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review. (4) For purposes of this subchapter, “government officials” shall not include defense counsel, whether appointed or retained.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 54 - Commonwealth v. Carr · 2001 Pa. Super. 152 - Commonwealth v. Joyner

2. “Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused [A]ppellant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea. In determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, a reviewing court must review all of the circumstances surrounding the entry of that plea. Commonwealth v. Allen, 557 Pa. 135 , 732 A.2d 582, 587 (1999) (internal citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, W., Aplt · Commonwealth v. Flanagan

3. “I. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object [and to request a curative instruction] when [C]ommonwealth introduced Appellant's demeanor after killing occurred as element of malice for murder in first degree and all prior counsel were ineffective for failing to raise, present and preserve this claim thereby so undermining the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could take[] place? ... II. Whether trial counsel was ineffective when he did not object and seek precautionary instruction following testimony that established Appellant had prior contact with the homicide division and all prior counsel's [ sic ] were ineffective for failing to raise, present and preserve this claim thereby so undermining the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place? III. Whether the PCRA Court erred when it dismissed Appellant's petition and permitted counsel to withdraw?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 347 - Commonwealth v. Gonzalez