Commonwealth v. Moore
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
BOWES, J.:
¶ 1 In the present case, the trial court held that it did not have the authority to grant Appellant permission to file his untimely post-sentence motion mmc pro tunc. This conclusion was incorrect as our Supreme Court has indicated that it is within the authority of a trial court to overlook the untimely filing of a post-trial motion and address the motion on the merits. If the trial court chooses to do so, any issues raised in the untimely motion *994will be considered preserved for purposes of appeal. In Commonwealth v. Metz, 534 Pa. 341, 633 A.2d…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DrevesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Kurtas v. KurtasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Commonwealth v. O'BergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Commonwealth v. MetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Commonwealth v. HewettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.