# Commonwealth v. Holmes

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 16, 2007 · 593 Pa. 601

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734896

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH v. Christopher HOLMES, Appellant; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Rufus Whitfield, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 16, 2007
- **Citations:** 593 Pa. 601; 933 A.2d 57
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fitzgerald
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin, Fitzgerald
- **Cited by:** 256 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/9734896

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 pr…
- 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
- stating, “Section 5505 . . . recognizes the removal of jurisdiction upon appeal . . . and the removal of jurisdiction upon the end of the term of court or the statutory thirty-day expansion of that time [. ]”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734896. Public record. Not legal advice.