Commonwealth v. Castillo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Castillo

858 A.2d 1156, 580 Pa. 3, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 1964

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 24, 2004·No. Petition 182 EAL 2004·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The Prothonotary is ordered to consolidate this case and 593 EAL 2003, and the parties are directed to brief the following issue:

*4 Should this Court reconsider its decisions in Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998), and Commonwealth v. Butler, 571 Pa. 441, 812 A.2d 631 (2002), so as to allow discretion in the intermediate appellate courts to review an issue that was not raised in a timely statement of matters complained of on appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); if so, what standards should be imposed to guide such discretion?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The Prothonotary is ordered to consolidate this case and 593 EAL 2003, and the parties are directed to brief the following issue:

*4 Should this Court reconsider its decisions in Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998), and Commonwealth v. Butler, 571 Pa. 441, 812 A.2d 631 (2002), so as to allow discretion in the intermediate appellate courts to review an issue that was not raised in a timely statement of matters complained of on appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); if so, what standards should be imposed to guide such discretion?

Commonwealth v. Castillo, 858 A.2d 1156, 580 Pa. 3, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 1964 (Pa. 2004).

Pincite

858 A.2d 1156 (Commonwealth v. Castillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related