Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Borrin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 30, 2013Published

1DissentJustice Eakin

I must respectfully dissent. First, I find the dispositional memorandum prepared by the clerk after sentencing to be less than a “court order” such as trumps the unambiguous sentence pronounced in court. Secondly, even if it was a court order, I find the errors therein to be patent and correctable. Put another way, I find the sentence as announced to be unambiguous, as the trial judge clearly stated each relevant sentence was to run consecutively; therefore, the additions to the sentence made on an inter-office form comprised a patent error which the trial court was empowered to correct.

The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Insurance Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. TitusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Commonwealth v. IsabellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Brosovic v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

3 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