Peoples v. Fulcomer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following: (i)A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (in) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent. (iv) The improper obstruction by government' officials of the petitioner’s right of appeal where a meritorious appealable issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court. (vi) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced. (vii) The imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum. (viii) A proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction. (3) That the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or waived. (4) That the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial, during unitary review or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by couns”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 960 F. Supp. 905 - United States Ex Rel. Patosky v. Kozakiewicz · 849 F. Supp. 377 - Harper v. Mazuriewicz

2. “[I]f a fair reading of the state post-conviction relief statute indicates that a state court might well entertain ... claims not raised in prior proceedings, and in the absence of a state court decision clearly foreclosing such a result, [petitioner] has not exhausted his state remedies”)(internal quotations omitted). 51 . See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522 , 102 S.Ct at 1205 (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lambert v. Blackwell · 960 F. Supp. 905 - United States Ex Rel. Patosky v. Kozakiewicz

3. “[W]e hold that People’s claim for relief because of the denial of the bench trial is exhausted, as it is clear that it is procedurally barred under Pennsylvania law. Under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9541 et seq. (Purdon Supp.1989), a petitioner, to obtain relief must prove, among other things, “(t)hat the allegation of error has not been previously litigated.” Id. at § 9544(a)(1). As we have indicated, Peoples did raise the bench trial issue in the trial court but did not appeal on that point to the Superior Court. Accordingly, the bench trial issue would be regarded in a Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding as “previously litigated” and Peoples thus could not obtain relief by reason of its denial in such a proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coston v. Zimmerman