From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. Dep't of Corr.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan 9, 2012
35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that a PCRA petitioner cannot raise new claims by supplementing a pending PCRA petition without prior court authorization because doing so would "wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the PCRA"

Summary of this case from Marcy v. Warden, SCI Graterford
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 115 EM 2011.

2012-01-9

Noel GARCIA, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2012, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc and the Application for Relief are DENIED.

Summaries of

Garcia v. Dep't of Corr.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan 9, 2012
35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012)

holding that a PCRA petitioner cannot raise new claims by supplementing a pending PCRA petition without prior court authorization because doing so would "wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the PCRA"

Summary of this case from Marcy v. Warden, SCI Graterford

holding that a PCRA petitioner may not raise new claims by merely supplementing a pending PCRA petition without court authorization because to do so would "wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the PCRA"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Mason

holding that a PCRA petitioner may not raise new claims by merely supplementing a pending PCRA petition without court authorization because to do so would “wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the PCRA”

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Elliott

holding that the PCRA court does not have jurisdiction to place a serial petition in repose pending the outcome of an appeal in the same case

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Baez

holding that amendments to pending PCRA petitions are not self-authorizing and cannot be amended simply by filing a supplemental pleading; rather, amendments are permitted only by the direction or leave of the PCRA court

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Kennedy

holding that amendments to pending PCRA petitions are not self-authorizing and petitions cannot be amended simply by filing a supplemental pleading; rather, amendments are permitted only by the direction or leave of the PCRA court

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Baez

holding that amendments to pending PCRA petitions are not self-authorizing and cannot be amended simply by filing a supplemental pleading; rather, amendments are permitted only by the direction or leave of the PCRA court

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Pacell

holding that a PCRA petitioner may not raise new claims by merely supplementing a pending PCRA petition without court authorization because to do so would "wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the PCRA"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Devon

holding that Rule 905 does not permit "self-authorizing" petitions, allowing a petitioner to "simply 'amend' a pending petition with a supplemental pleading;" instead, "the Rule explicitly states that amendment is permitted only by direction or leave of the PCRA court"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Romero

finding issue raised in supplemental pleading waived because, "there [wa]s no indication that [Porter] ever requested, or that the PCRA court ever granted, leave to amend the [first] petition at all, much less to amend it to include a new and unrelated claim"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Reid

finding issue raised in supplemental pleading waived because, "there [wa]s no indication that [Porter] ever requested, or that the PCRA court ever granted, leave to amend the [first] petition at all, much less to amend it to include a new and unrelated claim"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Reid

concluding that a subsequent petition, even though labeled "supplement and amendment," did not constitute an amended petition where "there [was] no indication that appellant ever requested, or the PCRA court ever granted, leave to amend the petition"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Hipps

concluding that "Lark does not speak to the PCRA court's authority ... where no appeal was pending, and where a prior petition was set aside, in accordance with the petitioner's demand that it not be decided."

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Bryant

denying recusal, affirming the PCRA court and directing further proceedings, including appointing new counsel "[i]f the conduct of the [Federal Community Defender's Office] unduly delays matters"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Reid

denying recusal, affirming the PCRA court and directing further proceedings, including appointing new counsel "[i]f the conduct of the [Federal Community Defender's Office] unduly delays matters"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Reid

In Commonwealth v. Porter, 613 Pa. 510, 35 A.3d 4, 12 (2012), we stated: "Misdesignation does not preclude a court from deducing the proper nature of a pleading."

Summary of this case from Scott v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

authorizing the common pleas court, if the FCDO “unduly delays matters,” to appoint new counsel relative to a petition filed pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Wright

reiterating that Rule 905 “explicitly states that amendment [of a PCRA petition] is permitted only by direction or leave of the PCRA court”

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Roney

stating that holding serial petitions in abeyance pending appeal in same case perverts PCRA timeliness requirements and invites unwarranted delay in resolving cases, as well as strategic litigation abuses

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. James

stating that holding serial petitions in abeyance pending appeal in same case perverts PCRA timeliness requirements and invites unwarranted delay in resolving cases, as well as strategic litigation abuses

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Rodabaugh

stating that holding serial petitions in abeyance pending appeal in same case perverts PCRA timeliness requirements and invites unwarranted delay in resolving cases, as well as strategic litigation abuses

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Beatty

explaining Rule 905 amendments are not "self-authorizing i.e., that a petitioner may simply 'amend' a pending petition with a supplemental pleading. Rather, the Rule explicitly states that amendment is permitted only by direction or leave of the PCRA court"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Gibson

explaining Pa.R.Crim.P. 905 explicitly requires leave of court to file amendment to PCRA petition

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Tilley

reiterating Lark's holding "that a PCRA trial court cannot entertain a new PCRA petition when a prior petition is still under review on appeal"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Yelverton

explaining Lark does not address PCRA court's authority where no appeal is pending

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Zeigler
Case details for

Garcia v. Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:Noel GARCIA, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Date published: Jan 9, 2012

Citations

35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Mason

The Rules of Criminal Procedure contemplate that amendments to pending PCRA petitions are to be "freely…

Commonwealth v. Roney

Amendment shall be freely allowed to achieve substantial justice. Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A); see Commonwealth v.…

135 Citing Cases