Skip to main content

Com. v. Hromek, R., Jr.

Citations

  • 232 A.3d 881
  • 2020 Pa. Super. 114

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that the PCRA generally “encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies . . . including habeas corpus. . . .”
  • noting that although a legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto
  • reaffirming Murphy and holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits of untimely PCRA petition
  • stating, “so long as a pleading falls within the ambit of the PCRA, the [PCRA] court should treat any pleading filed after the judgment of sentence is final as a PCRA petition”
  • construing claims challenging the legality of sentence as subject to review within PCRA
  • affirming the Wrecks’ holding that regardless of how a filing is titled, a petition should be treated as filed under the PCRA if it is filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final and seeks relief provided under the PCRA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Com. v. Hromek, R., Jr.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.