holding that the limited, inherent judicial power of the court to 5 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.” -6- J. S03008/16 correct patent errors arises in cases “involv[ing] clear errors in the imposition of sentences that [are] incompatible with the record”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the limited, inherent judicial power of the court to 5 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.” -6- J. S03008/16 correct patent errors arises in cases “involv[ing] clear errors in the imposition of sentences that [are] incompatible with the record”
- concluding that, while a trial court typically (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-S33011-17 ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b
- holding that the limits on a court’s jurisdiction to modify orders, as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505, do not impinge on a court’s inherent authority to correct patent errors despite the absence of traditional jurisdiction
- recognizing trial court's inherent power of correction encompasses not only patent and obvious errors that appear on the face of an order, but also errors that emerge upon consideration of information in the record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice FITZGERALD,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that trial courts retain the inherent authority to correct patent errors they have made, specifically and especially in the context of recognizing and rectifying illegal sentences where justice requires it. I therefore join the majority in the matter of Commonwealth v. Holmes.
With respect to Commonwealth v. Whitfield, however, I concur in the result only. I believe that the courts below ultimately reached the only just result by vacating Whitfield’s illegal sentence, and I would not have granted allocatur in this matter.