 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Randal12/1/2003
283, 288 (Pa. Super. 1997), appeal denied, 695 A.2d 784 (Pa. 1997), in light of Fahy and its progeny, which emphasize the jurisdictional nature of the PCRA time limits, cases such as Davis and Hockenberry may not accurately reflect current law.
7 Edrington, as noted above, recognized this change in the law by noting that "jurisdictional requirements" had to be met to raise a challenge to the legality of sentence. Id., at 723. That was clearly the import of Edrington's citation to Fahy after its citation to Archer as holding that a "legality of sentence issue must give way to jurisdictional time limits." Edrington, at 723.
8 Here, of course, there is no jurisdictional problem since this direct appeal from the judgment of sentence was timely perfected. Accordingly, since we could address the issue sua sponte, it matters not that the issue was raised on direct appeal in the context of a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel.
9 With these thoughts, I join the majority.
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|