# Commonwealth v. Morris

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 20, 2001 · 565 Pa. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728363

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Kelvin X. MORRIS, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 20, 2001
- **Citations:** 565 Pa. 1; 771 A.2d 721; 2001 Pa. LEXIS 807
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Castile, Zappala, Saylor, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728363

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that "constitutional rights are not absolute and the legislature may place reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights,” and concluding that "time limitations [on the right to appeal] provided a reasonable opportunity for those who have been wrongly convicted t…
- holding that a statute regarding a stay of execution was a substantive act because it “define[d] the appropriate circumstances for securing the substantive right” to a stay rather than setting forth a process for enforcing the stay
- holding that “a lower court may not exercise its inherent right to grant a stay except within the confínes enumerated by § 9545(c)” of the Post Conviction Relief Act
- explaining that the 1988 version of Section 9546(d) governs following *179 this Court's order dated August 11, 1997 which, inter alia, specifically suspended the 1995 and 1997 amendments to Section 9546(d)
- explaining that the 1988 version of Section 9546(d) governs following this Court's order dated August 11, 1997 which, inter alia, specifically suspended the 1995 and 1997 amendments to Section 9546(d)

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the court, but wish to emphasize the inherent power of the court to enter a stay in order to effectuate justice. When the legislature is silent, a court can always enter a stay when it is necessary to avoid injustice.
The opinion of the court briefly acknowledges this power, but understandably emphasizes the exception governing this case. When a convict under sentence of death seeks a stay of execution, he is obligated to follow the statutory procedure, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(c), established to control this precise situation. This in no way abrogates the court’s inherent power to grant a stay nor the convict’s right to seek a stay: it merely prescribes the procedure governing exercise of the court’s power and the convict’s rights. Mr. Justice Cap-pas opinion for the court aptly analogizes this situation to the relationship between the PCRA and the right of habeas corpus, whereby a petitioner must seek habeas relief only within the confines of the PCRA or suffer the loss of that right. This being understood, I join the opinion of the court.
As appellant failed to follow the procedure of § 9545(c), I agree that the court lacked the authority to stay the execution.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728363. Public record. Not legal advice.