Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Bentley

Citations

  • 831 A.2d 668

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that “jurisdiction goes to a court’s fundamental authority to entertain claims,” and finding that the trial court lacked authority to issue an order deciding the defendant’s post-trial motion beyond the timeframe allowed under Rule 720
  • recognizing that “jurisdiction goes to a court’s fundamental authority to entertain claims,” and finding that the trial court lacked authority to issue an order deciding the defendant’s post- trial motion beyond the timeframe allowed under Rule 720
  • considering an order a legality nullity where the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter it
  • failure to rule on post-sentence motion within prescribed period divested court of jurisdiction to render a decision at a later date
  • failure to rule on a post-sentence motion within the prescribed period divested the court of jurisdiction to render a decision at a later date
  • trial court could not grant appellant’s post sentence motion more than 120 days after filing, as it was divested of jurisdiction to do so

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Todd, Graci, Tamilia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.