Commonwealth v. Wilkinson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Wilkinson

393 A.2d 1020, 260 Pa. Super. 77, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3990

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 3, 1978

Docket1272

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 393 A.2d 1020 (Commonwealth v. Wilkinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 393 A.2d 1020, 260 Pa. Super. 77, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3990 (Pa. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PRICE, Judge:

This is an appeal from the lower court’s dismissal, without a hearing, of appellant’s “Petition to Vacate and Reconsider Sentence.” Because it is untimely, we quash the instant appeal.

Appellant was convicted, following a jury trial, of delivery of methamphetamine in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 1 On January 24, 1977, appellant was sentenced. He took no direct appeal from the judgment of sentence, but rather, on February 23, 1977, petitioned the lower court to reconsider the sentence. That petition was dismissed on March 15, 1977, and an appeal therefrom was filed with this court on March 17, 1977.

Pursuant to the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, an appeal to this court “from any order shall be filed within *79 thirty days of its entry.” 2 Such time limitations are strictly construed by our courts. Commonwealth v. Lord, 230 Pa.Super. 96, 326 A.2d 455 (1974); Commonwealth v. Peters, 178 Pa.Super. 82, 113 A.2d 327 (1955). It is clear that a motion for reargument or rehearing does not extend the time for taking an appeal, unless the court retains control, as by staying all proceedings. Provident National Bank v. Jerome Rooklin, 250 Pa.Super. 194, 378 A.2d 893 (1977); Commonwealth v. Lord, supra. Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). Similarly, a petition for reconsideration does not extend the time for appeal from a judgment of sentence. The record reflects that appellant was advised at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing of the time for filing an appeal. This appeal is thus not properly before us.

Appeal quashed.

WATKINS, former President Judge, and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

1

. The Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64, § 13(a)(30) [35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30)].

2

. The Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, Art. V, § 502(a) [17 P.S. § 211.502(a)], See also, Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

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

PRICE, Judge:

This is an appeal from the lower court’s dismissal, without a hearing, of appellant’s “Petition to Vacate and Reconsider Sentence.” Because it is untimely, we quash the instant appeal.

Appellant was convicted, following a jury trial, of delivery of methamphetamine in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 1 On January 24, 1977, appellant was sentenced. He took no direct appeal from the judgment of sentence, but rather, on February 23, 1977, petitioned the lower court to reconsider the sentence. That petition was dismissed on March 15, 1977, and an appeal therefrom was filed with this court on March 17, 1977.

Pursuant to the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, an appeal to this court “from any order shall be filed within *79 thirty days of its entry.” 2 Such time limitations are strictly construed by our courts. Commonwealth v. Lord, 230 Pa.Super. 96, 326 A.2d 455 (1974); Commonwealth v. Peters, 178 Pa.Super. 82, 113 A.2d 327 (1955). It is clear that a motion for reargument or rehearing does not extend the time for taking an appeal, unless the court retains control, as by staying all proceedings. Provident National Bank v. Jerome Rooklin, 250 Pa.Super. 194, 378 A.2d 893 (1977); Commonwealth v. Lord, supra. Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). Similarly, a petition for reconsideration does not extend the time for appeal from a judgment of sentence. The record reflects that appellant was advised at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing of the time for filing an appeal. This appeal is thus not properly before us.

Appeal quashed.

WATKINS, former President Judge, and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

1

. The Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64, § 13(a)(30) [35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30)].

2

. The Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, Art. V, § 502(a) [17 P.S. § 211.502(a)], See also, Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 A.2d 1020, 260 Pa. Super. 77, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-wilkinson-pasuperct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack