Commonwealth v. McGee, R.
This text of Commonwealth v. McGee, R. (Commonwealth v. McGee, R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 297 WAL 2021 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the Superior Court v. : : : RODNEY STERLING MCGEE, : : Petitioner :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is
GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
Does the Superior Court’s continued application herein and elsewhere of its holding in Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011), that a trial court’s inherent jurisdiction to correct patent and obvious mistakes in its records and orders is subject to the time-bar provisions of the PCRA improperly constrict trial courts’ jurisdiction, improperly expand the scope of the time-bar, and/or conflict with this Honorable Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007), which recognized that claims invoking said jurisdiction are not cognizable under the PCRA and thus not subject to the time-bar?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Commonwealth v. McGee, R., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mcgee-r-pa-2022.