Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

603 Pa. 66

981 A.2d 1283

Commonwealth v. Green

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 18, 2009

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2009-09-18

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2014

6 state decisions

Relies on Commonwealth v. Reed · 2008 Pa. Super. 220 - Commonwealth v. Green

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-09-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2 AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the PCRA court for further proceedings pursuant to Senior Judge Colville’s concurring and dissenting opinion. See Commonwealth v. Green, 957 A.2d 1238, 1243 (Colville, S.J., concurring and dissenting). The Superior Court inappropriately presumed respondent’s counsel had no reasonable cause for not seeking reconsideration of respondent’s sentence. Further, the court erred in presuming respondent was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file a post-sentence motion challenging the sentence. See Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216, 1225 (Pa.2009) (noting only three circumstances this Court has recognized counsel’s conduct warranted presumption of prejudice). Upon remand, the PCRA court shall hold a hearing to determine whether respondent’s trial counsel had reasonable basis not to file a post-trial motion seeking reconsideration of *67 respondent’s sentence. If counsel lacked reasonable basis, the PCRA court shall determine whether counsel’s failure to file a post-sentence motion prejudiced respondent.

¶3 Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice SAYLOR dissents.
/603/pa/66 · .json · Public domain