Commonwealth v. Morales

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Morales

988 A.2d 1287, 605 Pa. 254, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 45

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 3, 2010·No. No. 147 EM 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2010, the Petition for Leave to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DISMISSED. As Petitioner’s filing is not a request for mandamus relief, this matter was improperly transferred from the Superior Court on that basis. To the extent that Petitioner seeks reinstatement mmc pro tunc of his right to appeal to the Superior Court from the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) court’s order, the proper vehicle to make that request, if any, is a subsequent PCRA petition filed in the PCRA court. Cf. Kendrick v. District Attorney Of Philadelphia County, 591 Pa. 157, 916 A.2d 529, 537 (2007).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2010, the Petition for Leave to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DISMISSED. As Petitioner’s filing is not a request for mandamus relief, this matter was improperly transferred from the Superior Court on that basis. To the extent that Petitioner seeks reinstatement mmc pro tunc of his right to appeal to the Superior Court from the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) court’s order, the proper vehicle to make that request, if any, is a subsequent PCRA petition filed in the PCRA court. Cf. Kendrick v. District Attorney Of Philadelphia County, 591 Pa. 157, 916 A.2d 529, 537 (2007).

Commonwealth v. Morales, 988 A.2d 1287, 605 Pa. 254, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 45 (Pa. 2010).

Pincite

988 A.2d 1287 (Commonwealth v. Morales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related