Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Holmes

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 16, 2007No. 22, 24 EAP 2004PublishedCited by 207 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER.1

We granted review in these two cases to consider the interaction between a statute limiting the period of time during which a trial court may modify or rescind an order2 and the long-standing, inherent power of courts to correct patent errors in orders. See Commonwealth v. Cole, 437 Pa. 288, 263 A.2d 339 (1970). The two cases under review herein demonstrate a conflict in the application of authorities when trial courts attempt to exercise their inherent power to correct orders by vacating illegal sentences despite the expiration of the modification period provided by 42…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. FahySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Commonwealth v. VasquezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Commonwealth v. ColeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  5. Commonwealth v. WareSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by207 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. JacksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Commonwealth v. InfanteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  3. Commonwealth v. ThompsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Commonwealth v. BorrinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. Commonwealth v. PewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018

202 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API