# Commonwealth v. Lark > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 23, 2000 · 560 Pa. 487 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736663 ## Case - **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Robert LARK, Appellant - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** February 23, 2000 - **Citations:** 560 Pa. 487; 746 A.2d 585; 2000 Pa. LEXIS 417 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro - **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor - **Cited by:** 512 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736663 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding that a PCRA petitioner cannot file a subsequent PCRA petition while their PCRA appeal is pending, and “[i]f the subsequent petition is not filed within one year of the date when the judgment became final, then the petitioner must plead and prove that one of the thre… - holding “that when an appellant’s PCRA petition is pending before a court, a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the resolution of review of the pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in which review is sought, or the expiration of time for seeking such re… - holding that "when an appellant's PCRA appeal is pending before a court, a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the resolution of review of the pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in which review is sought, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking … - holding that couching argument in terms of ineffectiveness cannot save PCRA petition that does not fall into exception to ____________________________________________ 2 See 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501-4512 (RRRI Act). 3 The PCRA sets forth the newly discovered facts exception as follow… - holding that if a “petition is not filed within one year of the date when the judgment became final, then the petitioner must plead and prove that one of the three exceptions to the time bar under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) applies. The subsequent petition must also be filed with… ## Opinion text NIGRO, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority but write separately to comment on Appellant’s claim, although waived, that the trial court improperly refused to allow defense counsel to make a record of the race of the venirepersons for purposes of his Batson claim. 1 *500 During voir dire, defense counsel requested that the trial court allow him to develop a record indicating the racial composition of the venirepersons in order to preserve a claim that the prosecutor was unconstitutionally using his peremptory strikes to exclude African-Americans from the jury. The trial court refused, stating that “there is no way to determine a person’s race or color. I wouldn’t do it. I don’t think it’s proper.” N.T., 6/7/85, at 178. In my view, defense counsel’s request was clearly reasonable in light of this Court’s general requirement that a defendant seeking to establish a cognizable Batson claim on appeal must make a record specifically identifying the race of all venirepersons stricken by the prosecution, the race of the jurors acceptable to the prosecution who were stricken by the defense and the racial composition of the final jury selected. See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 558 Pa. 78 , 735 A.2d 688, 694 (1999). Given that such a record is, in essence, a prerequisite to preserving a Batson claim for appellate review, I believe that any time counsel makes a timely request to make a record for purposes of Batson, such a request should be granted. . In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 , 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1719 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that the *500 Equal Protection Clause prohibits a prosecutor from exercising peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely on account of their race. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736663. Public record. Not legal advice.