ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
OPINION JUSTICE DOUGHERTY . Sheldon Hannibal appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying his petition for relief from his death sentence, filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. 9541-9546, following an evidentiary hearing limited to one issue. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. We summarized the underlying facts in our opinion on direct appeal affirming appellant's sentence of death. Commonwealth v. Hannibal,...
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2016, the Application for Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2016, the "Appeal of Superior Court[`]s Order," treated as a Petition for Review, is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2016, the "Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction and Consolidation" is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Although counsel has not established that the failure to present a timely filing was due to non-negligent circumstances, Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-filed allocatur petition. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 122. Counsel is DIRECTED to file the already prepared Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 5 days
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 7 th day of November, 2016, Petitioners' Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED ; Petitioner's Emergency Application for Relief under and Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 726 and Pursuant to the Court's King's Bench Powers to Issue a Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 7 th day of November, 2016, Petitioners' Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED; Petitioner's Emergency Application for Relief under and Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 726 and Pursuant to the Court's King's Bench Powers to Issue a Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and Application to Submit Brief Reply in Support of their Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED.
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL JUSTICE TODD . Underlying the present appeal is the yet-unresolved question of whether the ballot language — seeking to raise the mandatory retirement age of judges and justices from 70 to 75 — fairly, completely, and accurately apprises the voters of the constitutional change they are being asked to approve. When we last faced this question in Sprague I 1 , I came to the considered conclusion that, in failing to inform the voters that they were...
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL JUSTICE WECHT . This Court recently considered—but deadlocked on—a challenge to the wording of the November 2016 general election ballot question. That question asks voters whether the judicial retirement age mandated in our Constitution should be amended. Appellants alleged that the ballot question as drafted misleads and deceives voters into believing that they are imposing a mandatory retirement age for the first time, when in fact a "yes" vote would...
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL DOUGHERTY , JUSTICE I view the current controversy as different from the procedural question raised on motion for reconsideration and decided by this Court on September 16, 2016. At this juncture, the issue is whether res judicata applies, and as this Court has not answered the substantive question originally presented — whether the ballot language at issue is unconstitutionally misleading — I do not believe a decision on the merits has been rendered by...
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
ORDER PER CURIAM . AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2016, Petitioners' Emergency Petition for Grant of Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DENIED.
