Com. v. Hoy, S. (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S39014/13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SCOTT LEWIS HOY, Appellant : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2131 MDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order, November 28, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at No. CP-14-CR-0001733-2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SCOTT LEWIS HOY, Appellant : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2132 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Order, November 9, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at No. CP-14-CR-0001731-2005 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA AND FITZGERALD,* JJ. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2013 Pursuant to the 5-4 en banc decision of Commonwealth v. Masker, 34 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc), appeal denied, 47 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2012), I am constrained to agree that Appellant s ineffectiveness claims are not cognizable under the PCRA. Nevertheless, I write separately to observe J-S39014/13 that under Masker, an SVP-classified defendant is generally precluded from relief on any ineffectiveness claim related to SVP classification procedures, and is therefore left without a remedy.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.