Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2023 · Criminal Law
Criminal Lawcriminal lawpetition for allowance of appealappeal deniedper curiamPennsylvania Supreme Court
Facts
The opinion text provides no underlying facts about the criminal case. It identifies the parties as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Aliek Quasim Carr. It also states that Carr filed a petition for allowance of appeal from an order of the Superior Court. No additional factual background appears in the order.
Issue
Whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would grant Carr's petition for allowance of appeal from the Superior Court's order.
Rule
This order states only that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the petition for allowance of appeal. The order does not articulate any substantive legal rule or test.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Pittsburgh, Devin Cole lost his criminal appeal in the intermediate appellate court and then filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the state's highest court. The court issued a one-sentence per curiam order stating only that the petition was denied.
What is the best characterization of the legal effect of that order?
Explanation. The majority opinion text states only that the petition for allowance of appeal was denied. From such a summary per curiam denial, the only supported conclusion is that discretionary review was declined and the lower court order remains undisturbed; no merits reasoning or substantive rule can be inferred. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Carr (n.d.).)