Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Moore

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 15, 2009No. 1442 WDA 2008&1448 WDA 2008Published

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

  1. Commonwealth v. DrevesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Kurtas v. KurtasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Commonwealth v. O'BergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Commonwealth v. MetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Commonwealth v. HewettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

6 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