Commonwealth v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to “at least one meaningful opportunity to have.. .issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Kaufmann, [ 405 Pa.Super. 335 , 592 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa.Super.1991) (quoting Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26, 35 , 432 A.2d 182, 186 (1981)) ]. This Court has admonished, accordingly, that “[t]he point in time at which a trial court may determine that a PCRA petitioner’s claims are frivolous or meritless is after the petitioner has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present those claims.” [Commonwealth v. Peterson, 453 Pa.Super. 271 , 683 A.2d 908, 909 (Pa.Super.1996) ]. Our Supreme Court has recognized that such an opportunity is best assured where the petitioner is provided representation by competent counsel “whose ability to frame the issues in a legally meaningful fashion insures the trial court that' all relevant considerations will be brought to its attention.” Commonwealth v. Carrier, 494 Pa. 305, 309 , 431 A.2d 271, 273 (1981). The [S]upreme [C]ourt has mandated accordingly, “that counsel be appointed in every case in which a defendant has filed a motion for post-conviction collateral review for the first time and is unable to afford counsel....” Kaufmann, supra [(quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. [904, comment) (emphasis added) ].... “Thus, before the trial court disposes of a post conviction petition, it must first make a determination ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 141 - Commonwealth v. Plummer · 2003 Pa. Super. 422 - Commonwealth v. Karanicolas

2. “Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to “at least one meaningful opportunity to have ... issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Kaufmann, 405 Pa.Super. 335 , 592 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa.Super.1991), quoting Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26, 35 , 432 A.2d 182, 186 (1981). This Court has admonished, accordingly, that “[t]he point in time at which a trial court may determine that a PCRA petitioner’s claims are frivolous or meritless is after the petitioner has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present those claims.” [citation omitted]. Our supreme court has recognized that such an opportunity is best assured where the petitioner is provided representation by competent counsel “whose ability to frame the issues in a legally meaningful fashion insures the trial court that all relevant considerations will be brought to its attention.” Commonwealth v. Carrier, 494 Pa. 305, 309 , 431 A.2d 271, 273 (1981).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 198 - Commonwealth v. Glover · 2003 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Malone

3. ““when appointed counsel fails to amend an inarticulately drafted pro se [post-conviction] petition, or fails otherwise to participate meaningfully, this court will conclude that the proceedings were, for all practical purposes, uncounselled and in violation of the representation requirement....” [Commonwealth v.] Ollie, 450 A.2d [1026,] 1028 [Pa.Super.1982] quoting Commonwealth v. Sangricco, 490 Pa. 126 , 415 A.2d 65 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Both this Court and our Supreme Court have recognized that a post-conviction petition is effectively uncoun-selled under a variety of circumstances whenever omissions of record demonstrate that counsel’s inaction “deprived the petitioner ‘the opportunity of legally trained counsel to advance his position in acceptable legal terms.’ ” Sangricco, supra, at 133 , 415 A.2d at-68, quoting [Commonwealth v.] Fiero, [ 462 Pa. 409 ,] 413, 341 A.2d [448,] 450 [ (1975) ]. [[Image here]] Though the foregoing decisions predate adoption of the Post Conviction Relief Act and current Rules of Criminal Procedure 1504 and 1507, this Court has held more recently that “one constant remains as a holdover, from the prior law: an indigent -defendant shall be availed the opportunity to secure the appointment of counsel to aid in the perfection of his first petition seeking post-conviction collateral relief.” [Commonwealth v.] Kaufmann, 592 A.2d [691,] 698 [ (Pa.Super.1991) ]. We find also that, as under our prior law, “[t]his rule is not limite”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 165 - Commonwealth v. Perez