Commonwealth v. Pitts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 67 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Pitts’s failure, prior to his PCRA appeal, to argue PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness for not raising the direct appeal issue results in waiver of the issue of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness. Pitts’s attempt to obtain review, on collateral appeal, of an issue not raised in the proceedings below amounts to a serial PCRA petition on PCRA appeal. Although Pitts asserts his PCRA appeal was the first opportunity he had to challenge PCRA counsel’s stewardship because he was no longer represented by PCRA counsel, he could have challenged PCRA counsel’s stewardship after receiving counsel’s withdrawal letter and the notice of the PCRA court’s intent to dismiss his petition pursuant to Pa. R.Crim.P. 907, yet he failed to do so. Thus, the issue of whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the direct appeal issue was waived, and the Superior Court should not have reached it.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 98 - Commonwealth v. Ford · 2014 Pa. Super. 75 - Commonwealth v. Henkel

2. “Consequently, we here announce a further prerequisite which must hereafter attend an application by counsel to withdraw from representing a PCRA petitioner, namely, that PCRA counsel who seeks to withdraw must contemporaneously serve a copy on the petitioner of counsel’s application to withdraw as counsel, and must supply to the petitioner both a copy of the “no-merit” letter and a statement advising the petitioner that, in the event that the court grants the application of counsel to withdraw, he or she has the right to proceed pro se or with the assistance of privately retained counsel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 208 - Commonwealth v. Widgins · 2016 Pa. Super. 77 - Commonwealth v. Muzzy

3. ““1) 'A no-merit’ letter by PC[R]A counsel detailing the nature and extent of his review; 2)The 'no-merit' letter by PC[R]A counsel listing each issue the petitioner wished to have reviewed; 3) The PC[R]A counsel’s 'explanation', in the ‘no-merit’ letter, of why the petitioner’s issues were meritless; 4) The PC[R]A court conducting its own independent review of the record; and 5) The PC[R]A court agreeing with counsel that the petition was meritless.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands