Com. v. Rainey

Decision Date28 December 2001
Citation786 A.2d 942,567 Pa. 271
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Michael RAINEY, Appellant.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Robert Brett Dunham, Philadelphia, for appellant, Michael Rainey.

Catherine Marshall, Philadelphia, for appellee, Com.

Robert A. Graci, Harrisburg, for appellee, Office of Atty. Gen.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2001, this case is remanded for an appropriate disposition in accordance with Commonwealth v. Williams, 782 A.2d 517 (Pa. 2001).

Justice CASTILLE files a concurring statement.

Justice CASTILLE, concurring.

The PCRA court in this case failed to file an independent opinion in support of its dismissal of the PCRA petition, instead relying upon the reasoning set forth in the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss and accompanying brief. For the reasons stated in my Concurring Opinions in Commonwealth v. (Craig) Williams, 782 A.2d 517 (Pa.2001) and Commonwealth v. (Roy) Williams, 557 Pa.207, 732 A.2d 1167 (1999), I agree that this appeal must be remanded to the PCRA court "to prepare an opinion reflecting its independent consideration of the issues raised in the amended PCRA petition and for whatever further proceedings, if any, the PCRA court may deem necessary to accomplish that task." Craig Williams, 782 A.2d at 530 (Castille, J., concurring). Accord Roy Williams, 732 A.2d at 1193 (Castille, J. concurring)

(preferred practice of this Court "requires that we remand the entire matter to the PCRA court for an opinion which addresses all the relevant issues and which states the court's reasons for denying relief").

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Com. v. Rainey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 18, 2007
    ...the case to the PCRA court and ordered a more detailed explanation of the reason for the court's disposition. Commonwealth v. Rainey, 567 Pa. 271, 786 A.2d 942 (2001); see Commonwealth v. (Craig) Williams, 566 Pa.553, 782 A.2d 517 (2001) (remanding PCRA case where the PCRA court adopted the......
  • Com. v. Fulton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 30, 2002
    ...4, 568 Pa. 346 (2001)(noting previous per curiam order remanding for PCRA court opinion pursuant to (Roy) Williams); Commonwealth v. Rainey, 567 Pa. 271, 786 A.2d 942 (2001). In addition, in another published opinion involving a capital PCRA appeal, this Court again enforced the rule. See C......
  • Com. v. Rainey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 7, 2006
    ...to the PCRA court to prepare an opinion consistent with Commonwealth v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517 (2001). Commonwealth v. Rainey, 567 Pa. 271, 786 A.2d 942 (2001). I participated in that decision and authored a concurring statement. Again, I was not asked to recuse. On July 26, 20......
  • Rainey v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 27, 2016
    ...to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In 2001, Rainey's case was remanded for a more detailed PCRA opinion. See Commonwealth v. Rainey (Rainey II), 786 A.2d 942, 942(Pa. 2001). His petition was again denied and he again appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In July 2007, his appeal was d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT