# Commonwealth v. Hudson

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 18, 2003 · 2003 Pa. Super. 104

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736996

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Michael Leon HUDSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 18, 2003
- **Citations:** 2003 Pa. Super. 104; 820 A.2d 720; 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 410
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Elliott
- **Judges:** Elliott, Melvin, Graci
- **Cited by:** 62 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/9736996

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, “[the defendant] did not direct a motion for recusal to the trial judge following the court’s rejection of his plea agreement, and we find no merit to his argument that a recusal motion can somehow be inferred from his request to present the plea to a different judge”
- stating “we may not reach the merits of [the] claims where the Commonwealth has object[ed] to the omission of the statement”
- finding sentencing claim waived for review where Commonwealth objected to omission of Rule 2119(f) statement
- holding waiver required where Commonwealth specifically objects to absence of rule 2119(f) statement
- finding Grant inapplicable in this situation

## Opinion text

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
FORD ELLIOTT, J.:
¶ 1 While I join the disposition on the merits, I write separately to concur only in the majority’s analysis of Commonwealth v. Grant. I believe Grant allows this court to resolve ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal as long as there is an adequate record on the issue before this court. This is true regardless of whether the issue has been addressed by the trial court in the first instance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736996. Public record. Not legal advice.