Commonwealth v. Sheehan

Dissenting Opinion by

Hoffman, J.:

I vigorously dissent from the majority’s attempt to revive Commonwealth v. Garner, 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 227, 208 A. 2d 333 (1964), and its denial of a remedy to appellant.

Garner held that a defendant could not attack a sentence which affected a sentence he was serving if the former sentence had been served. That rationale was rejected by the Supreme Court in Commonwealth *31ex rel. Ulmer v. Rundle, 421 Pa. 40, 218 A. 2d 233 (1966), and by this Court in Commonwealth ex rel. Ackerman v. Russell, 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 467, 228 A. 2d 208 (1967).

We stated specifically…