Commonwealth v. Small, E.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Small, E.

207 A.3d 289

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 23, 2019

Docket559 EAL 2018 (Granted)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 A.3d 289 (Commonwealth v. Small, E.) 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. Small, E., 207 A.3d 289 (Pa. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 23 ^rd day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Where Small did not receive notice of his co-defendant Larry Bell's 1993 PCRA hearing, and where Small has been continuously incarcerated, with only limited assistance of counsel on unrelated claims since that time, was Bell's PCRA testimony "unknown" to Small under Commonwealth v. Burton [, 638 Pa. 687 , 158 A.3d 618 (2017)]?

(2) Has Small otherwise satisfied the requirements for an exception to the PCRA time-bar under [42 Pa.C.S.] § 9545(b)(1)(ii) based on his co-defendant Bell's PCRA testimony, such that the PCRA court's grant of a new trial should be reinstated?

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

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 23 ^rd day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Where Small did not receive notice of his co-defendant Larry Bell's 1993 PCRA hearing, and where Small has been continuously incarcerated, with only limited assistance of counsel on unrelated claims since that time, was Bell's PCRA testimony "unknown" to Small under Commonwealth v. Burton [, 638 Pa. 687 , 158 A.3d 618 (2017)]?

(2) Has Small otherwise satisfied the requirements for an exception to the PCRA time-bar under [42 Pa.C.S.] § 9545(b)(1)(ii) based on his co-defendant Bell's PCRA testimony, such that the PCRA court's grant of a new trial should be reinstated?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.3d 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-small-e-pa-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack