Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 7/21/2003

Commonwealth v. Williams

Citations

828 A.2d 981
573 Pa. 613
2003 Pa. LEXIS 1242

How courts have described this case

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

holding that because the PCRA court never ruled on the petitioner’s motion to withdraw his first PCRA petition, a subsequent PCRA petition constituted an amendment to a timely filed first petition
indicating that the PCRA court retains discretion whether or not to grant a motion to amend a post-conviction petition
indicating that the PCRA court retains discretion whether or not to grant a motion to amend a post-conviction petition
indicating that the PCRA court retains discretion whether or not to grant a motion to amend a post-conviction petition
explaining that the use of the word “may” in a statute implies the existence of discretion
holding petitioner's subsequent PCRA petitions constituted amendments to first-filed petition, where first petition remained pending because the court had taken no action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

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.