Commonwealth v. Stout

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that where appellant filed “Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum” alleging jurisdictional defects, appellant was obligated to proceed under the PCRA
• applying for a writ of habeas corpus as a tactical choice to evade the timeliness requirements of the PCRA is not permitted
• vacating order denying appellant’s improperly titled petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanding for appointment of PCRA counsel
• vacating order denying the appellant’s improperly titled petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanding for the appointment of PCRA counsel
• “for the most part, the PCRA has subsumed the writ of habeas corpus as a means for obtaining post-conviction relief from a judgment of sentence.”
• PCRA, not petition for habeas corpus, provided prisoner with remedy for allegations that court lacked jurisdiction and authority to prosecute him

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).