Commonwealth v. Santone

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to issue an order resolving the defendant’s post-sentence motion after 120 days had passed
• concluding that an order issued beyond the time period set forth in what is now Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 was a legal nullity
• holding trial court’s modification of sentence after 120-day period to decide post-sentence motions a nullity because post-sentence motions deemed denied by operation of law
• trial court’s modification of sentence after 120-day period to decide post-sentence motions deemed nullity for lack of jurisdiction because post-sentence motions were denied by operation of law
• “Where there is no jurisdiction, there is no authority to pronounce judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).