Commonwealth v. Daniels

892 A.2d 820
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 8, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 892 A.2d 820 (Commonwealth v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Daniels, 892 A.2d 820 (Pa. 2006).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of March 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED solely with respect to Petitioner’s claim that the Superior Court erred in considering the merits of the claim regarding the recantation of Eric Ross. Accordingly, we VACATE the Order of the Superior Court in part and REMAND for entry of an Order affirming the Order of the PCRA court but clarifying that Petitioner’s claim based on the Ross Affidavit is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to raise it in a subsequent PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Jones, 571 Pa. 112, 811 A.2d 994 (2002).

Justice BALDWIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Com. v. Daniels, W.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
892 A.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-daniels-pa-2006.