Skip to main content

Commonwealth, Aplt v. Descares

Citations

  • 136 A.3d 493
  • 635 Pa. 395
  • 2016 Pa. LEXIS 696

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that petitioner whose sentence had expired was not eligible for PCRA relief, notwithstanding the immigration consequences of his convictions
  • holding that petitioner who was no longer serving sentence was thereby ineligible for PCRA relief
  • holding that the petitioner’s PCRA petition “should have been dismissed because, as he was no longer incarcerated at the time it was filed, he was ineligible for PCRA relief”
  • holding that because the petitioner was no longer serving a sentence, “he was ineligible for PCRA relief, and, thus, both the PCRA court and the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition”
  • holding that Descardes was not entitled to seek review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim via a petition for writ of coram nobis because the claim could have been raised under the PCRA
  • holding that because the -6- J-S15017-24 defendant was no longer serving a sentence, “he was ineligible for PCRA relief, and, thus, both the PCRA court and the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Commonwealth, Aplt v. Descares

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.