Long v. Mast

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 post-conviction claim that an original sentence is illegal due to the retroactive application of a sexual offender registration requirement must be raised in a PCRA petition
• holding that claims challenging application of SORNA’s registration provisions and “invocation of Muniz implicate[] the legality of [the] sentence, which is an issue cognizable under the PCRA and, therefore, subject to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements”
• holding declaration that defendant was not subject to SORNA was an untimely request for PCRA relief
• explaining that “claims challenging applications of SORNA’s registration provisions – unlike prior versions of Megan’s Law – are properly considered under the PCRA”
• applying Murphy and holding “the rule recognized in Muniz does not establish a timeliness exception to the PCRA”
• vacating and remanding case where trial court entertained untimely PCRA petition stating that defendant did not have to comply with SORNA requirements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).