Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Commonwealth v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

December 31, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner
v.
JOHN JACKSON, Respondent

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Unpublished Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1917 EDA 2012 filed March 25, 2014, vacating the Order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas at No. CP-51-CR-0203341-2004 filed May 25, 2012

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to assess whether counsel had a reasonable basis for not objecting to the detective's testimony is VACATED, in light of respondent's failure to aver facts in his PCRA petition establishing his right to relief. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a); Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426, 438-43 (Pa. 2011); see also Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 319 (Pa. 2014) (remand for reasonable-basis hearing unnecessary where it is apparent petitioner failed to establish prejudice (citations omitted)). Jurisdiction relinquished.

DISSENTING STATEMENT

MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR

I respectfully dissent from the majority's summary disposition of this case on the allocatur docket. The Court's Internal Operating Procedures require that "[a] per curiam order granting allowance of appeal and reversing an order of the lower court must cite to controlling legal authority or provide a full explanation of the reasons for reversal." Supreme Court IOP §6(B). The rule is plainly intended to provide litigants with a reasonably developed explanation as to why the Court is exercising its discretion to disturb the status quo attained in an as-of-right direct appeal. In this regard, the majority's mere citations to general legal principles, without any attempt to explain how those principles apply to the facts under review, are facially deficient.

Absent a citation to directly controlling authority involving an analogous paradigm, this Court should, at most, grant the request for allocatur and consider the merits upon full briefing by the parties.

Madame Justice Todd joins the dissenting statement.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.