Commonwealth v. Descardes
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
BOWES, J.:
Ultimately, I agree with the learned majority that Appellee is not entitled to withdraw his plea, whether it be under the PCRA statute or the ancient common law writ of error coram nobis. I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that Appellee properly invoked coram nobis to achieve review of his untimely ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In my view, the majority fails to appreciate the interplay between PCRA review and coram nobis under the unusual circumstances of this case, and confuses ineligibility for relief under the PCRA…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Commonwealth v. GrantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Chaidez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Commonwealth v. TaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.