Rawls v. Com.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a motion to vacate is the proper vehicle to challenge a void ab initio sentencing order
• recognizing that a motion to vacate is the proper vehicle to challenge a void ab initio sentencing order
• holding that a motion to vacate is the appropriate procedural device to challenge a conviction or sentence that is void ab initio and that such a conviction or sentence may be corrected at any time
• holding that a motion to vacate is the appropriate procedural device to challenge a conviction or sentence that is void ab initio and that such a conviction or sentence may be corrected at any time
• explaining that the reason such sentences are void ab initio is because \the character of the judgment was not such as the [C]ourt had the power to render\
• explaining that the reason such sentences are void ab initio is because “the character of the judgment was not such as the [C]ourt had the power to render”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).