stating that, “[t]o be eligible for PCRA relief, [an a]pellant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors or defects found in section 9543(a)(2)[,] and that his issues have not been previously litigated”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, “[t]o be eligible for PCRA relief, [an a]pellant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors or defects found in section 9543(a)(2)[,] and that his issues have not been previously litigated”
- stating in a PCRA appeal that although one of the appellant’s issues had "been finally litigated and Appellant [was] not entitled to PCRA relief thereon,” the court would, "given the serious nature of the matters before [it], [] proceed lo address Appellant’s claim.”
- stating that an issue is previously litigated if “the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue”
- noting that where there are no disputed factual issues, a PCRA hearing is not necessary
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
On direct appeal, I dissented on the basis that the trial judge failed to ensure that Banks made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel by permitting him to introduce prejudicially inflammatory pictures. I continue to adhere to this view; however, I am constrained to recognize that this issue has been finally litigated and is not subject to collateral attack in its present posture. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(2).