Case ID: pa_629/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

105 A.3d 658
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jose MEDINA, Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Dec. 11, 2014.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Does the en banc Superior Court’s published decision contravene the plain language of the PCRA and precedent by deeming defendant duly diligent in pursuing his claim despite his failure to speak with the recanting witness for fourteen years?
(2) Does the en banc Superior Court’s published decision contravene precedent by failing to properly consider factors that greatly undermined the reliability of the recantation evidence, and rendered erroneous the determination that it likely would have changed the verdict?
(3) Does the en banc Superior Court’s published decision contravene precedent by approving an ostensible credibility finding against a key witness whose testimony the PCRA court suppressed?
(4) Does the en banc Superior Court’s published decision contravene the governing standard by rejecting the Commonwealth’s recusal argument where the PCRA judge’s repeated conduct in sua sponte raising claims on defendant’s behalf created an objective appearance of impropriety?