Petitions for Allowance of Appeal

5 Citing cases

  1. Blasi v. Attorney General of Com. of Pennsylvania

    30 F. Supp. 2d 481 (M.D. Pa. 1998)   Cited 80 times
    Indicating that the section 2244 tolling provisions can only "pause a clock that has not yet fully run"; they cannot "restart the clock at zero."

    Two consecutive terms of incarceration for a period of 60 to 120 months were imposed, combining various counts relative to each term. Blasi's total sentence was 120 to 240 months' incarceration. On direct appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, Commonwealth v. Blasi, 444 Pa. Super. 672, 663 A.2d 244 (1995) (table), and the Supreme Court denied a petition for allocatur, Commonwealth v. Blasi, 542 Pa. 640, 666 A.2d 1050 (1995) (table). Before the latter ruling was issued, Blasi filed a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) which was denied by the Court of Common Pleas. The Superior Court again affirmed, Commonwealth v. Blasi, 711 A.2d 1037 (Pa.Super. 1998), and the Supreme Court again denied allocatur.

  2. Commonwealth v. Wynn-Turner

    No. 1410 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. May. 1, 2018)

    As such, we cannot accept the Commonwealth's argument. Commonwealth v. Bucknor, 441 Pa.Super. 441, 657 A.2d 1005, 1007 n.1 (1995), appeal denied, 542 Pa. 640, 666 A.2d 1050 (1995) (A three judge panel cannot overrule en banc decisions of this Court).However, Pa.R.E. Rule 803(1), the present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay, does not

  3. Commonwealth v. Wolfe

    106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)

    Likewise, in this case, although the jury was required to find that the victim was less than 16 years of age in order to convict Appellant, we cannot ignore the binding precedent from an en banc decision of this Court. See Commonwealth v. Bucknor, 441 Pa.Super. 441, 657 A.2d 1005, 1007 n. 1 (1995) (stating, “as a three judge panel[,] we are bound by the rulings of a court en banc [ ]”), appeal denied, 542 Pa. 640, 666 A.2d 1050 (1995). Newman stands for the proposition that mandatory minimum sentence statutes in Pennsylvania of this format are void in their entirety.

  4. Commonwealth v. Wolfe

    2014 Pa. Super. 288 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)

    Likewise, in this case, although the jury was required to find that the victim was less than 16 years of age in order to convict Appellant, we cannot ignore the binding precedent from an en banc decision of this Court. See Commonwealth v. Bucknor, 441 Pa.Super. 441, 657 A.2d 1005, 1007 n. 1 (1995) (stating, “as a three judge panel[,] we are bound by the rulings of a court en banc [ ]”), appeal denied, 542 Pa. 640, 666 A.2d 1050 (1995). Newman stands for the proposition that mandatory minimum sentence statutes in Pennsylvania of this format are void in their entirety.

  5. Com. v. Hood

    2005 Pa. Super. 93 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that although the "Rules of Appellate Procedure make the filing of a 1925 opinion mandatory," the "lack of a Rule 1925 opinion is not always fatal to our review, because we can look to the record to ascertain the reasons for the order."

    As such, we cannot accept the Commonwealth's argument. Commonwealth v. Bucknor, 441 Pa.Super. 441, 657 A.2d 1005, 1007 n. 1 (1995), appeal denied, 542 Pa. 640, 666 A.2d 1050 (1995) (A three judge panel cannot overrule en banc decisions of this Court). ¶ 26 However, Pa.R.E. Rule 803(1), the present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay, does not explicitly adopt the Carney rule, and no case subsequent to codification has done so either.