Commonwealth v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentJustice Eakin
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction to vacate, sua, sponte, sentences in cases more than 30 days after their imposition, and I respectfully dissent from the expansion of the exceptions to the clear language of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
As the majority notes, a claim concerning the illegality of a sentence is non-waivable. See Commonwealth v. Andrews, 564 Pa. 321, 768 A.2d 309, 312 (2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 560 Pa. 381, 744 A.2d 1280, 1283 (2000)); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 542 Pa. 568, 669 A.2d 315, 321 *624(1995). A defendant does not…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LantzySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. AhlbornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Commonwealth v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Commonwealth v. VasquezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Commonwealth v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.