Commonwealth v. Parrish

7 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Parrish

    224 A.3d 682 (Pa. 2020)   Cited 65 times
    Holding appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement which vaguely challenged trial counsel's ineffectiveness was deficient where it "did not identify any specific legal error committed by the PCRA court in its rulings on the multifarious claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness presented in the amended PCRA petitions, nor did it even identify which of those rulings were being challenged on appeal. Rather, it generically and capaciously encompassed every conceivable claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel contained in the amended PCRA petitions. As such, it forced the PCRA court to guess which of its rulings were being challenged"

    The factual history of this case was set forth in greater detail in our prior opinion issued in Appellant's direct appeal. SeeCommonwealth v. Parrish , 621 Pa. 210, 77 A.3d 557 (2013). Sidney had recently undergone a heart transplant, and he required anti-rejection medications, which Victoria administered to him at approximately 8 p.m. each night.

  2. Commonwealth v. Parrish

    317 A.3d 551 (Pa. 2024)

    In 2013, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Parrish, 621 Pa. 210, 77 A.3d 557 (2013) (Parrish I). In 2014, Parrish timely filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541-9546, in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (PCRA court).

  3. Commonwealth v. Parrish

    273 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2022)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that a PCRA petitioner "adequately raised and preserved his layered claim of the ineffective assistance of trial and initial PCRA counsel by raising it at the first opportunity to do so, specifically in his [Rule] 1925(b) Statement and in his [appellate] brief"

    Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Id . at 684-85 (citing Commonwealth v. Parrish , 621 Pa. 210, 77 A.3d 557, 560 (2013) (automatic review opinion)). Prosecutors charged Parrish with two counts of first-degree murder, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a).

  4. Parrish v. Wetzel

    CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:14-CV-00966 (M.D. Pa. May. 28, 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Denying stay of federal proceedings where 262 days remained to timely file federal habeas petition

    Following his convictions for first degree murder and related counts, petitioner was sentenced to death on May 15, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 21.) Petitioner's convictions and sentence of death were affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on September 25, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Parrish, 77 A.3d 557 (Pa. 2013), rearg. denied, No. 661 Cap. App. Dkt. (Pa. Nov. 27, 2013). His petition for certiorari review was denied by the United States Supreme Court on May 19, 2014. Parrish v. Pennsylvania, No. 13-9201, Order (U.S. May 19, 2014).

  5. Commonwealth v. Cash

    137 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016)   Cited 146 times
    Finding that trial counsel waived his fair-trial challenge predicated upon being shackled during proceedings under Pa.R.C.P. 302 when, after initially objecting, counsel stated, "[i]f the sheriff's office feels [the shackling] has to be done, I don't feel I have a position one way or the other," and stating that he had "no objection" to the shackling at a subsequent hearing

    Although Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence focuses exclusively on whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that he acted with malice, it is this Court's well established practice in direct appeals from the imposition of a sentence of death to review the sufficiency of the evidence presented with respect to each of the elements necessary to sustain a first-degree murder conviction. See Commonwealth v. Parrish, 621 Pa. 210, 77 A.3d 557, 561 (2013). In so doing, we determine “whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all the reasonable inferences derived therefrom viewed in favor of the Commonwealth as verdict winner, supports the jury's finding of all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

  6. Commonwealth v. Bailey

    111 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 7, 2023)

    Our Supreme Court has held that in order to convict a defendant of first-degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove, inter alia, that "the defendant acted with malice and the specific intent to kill." Commonwealth v. Parrish, 77 A.3d 557, 561 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted).

  7. Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo

    2013 Pa. Super. 270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013)   Cited 11 times
    In Carrasquillo, the Court noted that the determination of whether there is a "fair and just reason" to permit the pre-sentence withdrawal request should be based on the totality of the circumstances attendant at the time of the request, including the timing of the assertion of innocence, the statements made by the defendant in association with his declaration of innocence, and the plausibility of the defendant's statements in light of the evidentiary proffer made by the Commonwealth at the plea hearing.

    We note at the outset the well-settled principle that the severity or notoriety of the crime charged is immaterial to the application of the legal test. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Parrish, ––– Pa. –––– & n. 2, 77 A.3d 557, 560–61 & n. 2 (2013) (plea withdrawal granted in capital murder case; appellant convicted at trial of killing girlfriend and their 19-month-old son). By way of contrast, we apply a much more exacting standard when the defendant moves to withdraw his guilty plea following the imposition of sentence.