Bullock v. Cochran

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a defendant cannot escape the PCRA time-bar by titling his petition or motion as a writ of habeas corpus.”
• holding that all motions filed after a judgment of sentence has become final are to be construed as PCRA petitions
• holding that “a defendant cannot escape the PCRA time-bar by titling his petition or motion as a writ of habeas corpus.”
• holding that issues such as the illegality of sentence that are cognizable under the PCRAA “must be raised in a timely PCRA petition and cannot be raised in a habeas corpus petition”
• holding that “Appellant’s writ of habeas corpus should be treated as a PCRA petition” because “[i]t is well- settled that the PCRA is intended to be the sole means of achieving post- conviction relief”
• holding that post-conviction movant waived appellate review of post-conviction court's failure to give movant notice of intent to dismiss or to afford movant opportunity to amend petition, by failing to challenge such failures on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).