Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Commonwealth v. Gaines

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 5, 2015No. 1497 MDA 2013Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION BY

DONOHUE, J.:

I agree that this appeal is untimely and concur with the decision to quash, but for different reasons. The Majority Conducts its review from the premise that the petition Gaines filed on May 21, 2013 was an amended PCRA petition. In nay view, Gaines’ May 21, 2013 filing was an untimely second PCRA petition rather than an amendment to his first PCRA petition. Thus, the issue of whether a PCRA order is final when entered or following the completion of further action ordered by the PCRA court is not properly before this Court.

The relevant timeline is as follows.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HernandezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Commonwealth v. FahySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. In Re the Fourth Statewide Investigating Grand JurySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API