Commonwealth v. Derrickson

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 PCRA petitioner is not entitled to raise new issues in his response to the court’s Rule 907 notice; instead, the petitioner is required to seek leave to amend the petition to add the issue
• concluding that because appellant’s PCRA petition failed to allege any exception to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time- bar and he invoked an exception for first time in response to Rule 907 notice, court did not err in dismissing PCRA petition without a hearing
• holding, “[I]f, after he received the PCRA court’s notice of its intent to dismiss, [the petitioner] desired to properly allege any of the exceptions enumerated under . . . § 9545(b)(1
• stating that Appellant’s response to the 907 letter issued by the PCRA court should only raise objections to issues already argued in the corresponding PCRA petition and should not raise new issues.
• stating: “Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims”
• stating that if a petition is untimely, and the petitioner has not pled and proven an exception, “neither this Court nor the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).