green
Positive treatment
Issue: due process clausePA ↗
Issue: Lloyd claimPA ↗
Issue: meaningful hearingPA ↗
Quoted verbatim 5×
80.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2021–2022 ·
…if the pcra offers a remedy for an appellant's claim, it is the sole avenue of relief and the pcra time limitations apply.
at p. 879
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2023–2025 ·
…it is only when the petitioner challenges the legality of a trial court's alleged failure to award credit for time served as required by law in imposing sentence, that a challenge to the sentence is deemed cognizable as a due process claim in pcra proceedings.
at p. 879
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Legg, N.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
it is only when the petitioner challenges the legality of a trial court's alleged failure to award credit for time served as required by law in imposing sentence, that a challenge to the sentence is deemed cognizable as a due process claim in pcra proceedings.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Alvarez, S. v. Terra, J.
(2×)
it is only when the petitioner challenges the legality of a trial court's alleged failure to award credit for time served as required by law in imposing sentence, that a challenge to the sentence is deemed cognizable as a due process claim in pcra proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Miranda, E.
if the pcra offers a remedy for an appellant's claim, it is the sole avenue of relief and the pcra time limitations apply.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Tidd, B.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
this claim that the doc 'miscalculated the credit for time served awarded by the trial court' is not cognizable under the pcra.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Arnold, K.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
if the pcra offers a remedy for an appellant's claim, it is the sole avenue of relief and the pcra time limitations apply.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brinkley, K.
Specifically, we noted that “if … the alleged error is thought to be attributable to ambiguity in the sentence imposed by the trial court, then a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum lies to the trial court for clarification and/or correction of the sentence imposed.” Wyatt, 115 A.3d at 879 (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Meleschuck, W.
Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa.Super. -5- J-S17037-25 2015)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Arnold, S.
However, we have also “clarified the different claims a -5- J-S25039-25 prisoner may raise regarding credit for time served and the mechanisms for raising such claims[,]” Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015), stating: If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the [DOC], then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the [DOC’s] computation.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Conroy, D.
Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa. Super. 2015)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jewell, G.
(2×)
However, when a prisoner does not argue that an illegal sentence was imposed but instead contends that DOC has miscalculated his sentence based on an “ambiguity in the sentence imposed by the trial court, then a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum lies to the trial court for clarification and/or correction of the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v. Wheeler, 314 A.3d 1286, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2024) (quoting Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa. Super. 2015)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Classen, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa.Super. 2015) (cleaned up).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wheeler, D.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761(a)(1) (“The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings … [a]gainst the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity….”). -4- J-S05015-24 Upon review of the record, it is apparent that the trial court did award Wheeler credit for time served.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ortiz-Benabe, J.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Second, “[i]f the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the [DOC], then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the [DOC’s] computation.” See Wyatt, 115 A.3d at 879 (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Geathers, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa.Super. 2015) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rhodes, D.
See McCray v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127, 1131 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2015); Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392, 393, 395 (Pa. Super. 2014); Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723, 725 (Pa. Super. 1992); Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511, 512-13 (Pa. Super. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Witherspoon, G.
“Misdesignation of a pleading does not preclude a court from deducing the proper nature of a pleading.” See Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4 , 12 (citation omitted). “[I]f the PCRA offers a remedy for an appellant’s claim, it is the sole avenue -4- J-S12042-20 of relief and the PCRA time limitations apply.” Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Oliver, A.
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511 , 512–513 (Pa. Super. 1989) (calculation of time is determined ____________________________________________ 2 Between 2011 and 2016, Appellant initially sought a jury trial, entered guilty pleas on August 11, 2015, and was permitted to withdraw the pleas on October 20, 2015. -2- J-A13014-19 by the DOC, and any challenge to the DOC’s computation must be brought in an original action in the Commonwealth Court).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pettis, R.
(2×)
Pettis, appeals from an order entered on February 6, 2017, at trial court docket numbers 2073 CR 2015 and 3727 CR 2015.1 Notice of Appeal, 5/31/18.2 After careful review, we affirm in part, ____________________________________________ 1 On June 22, 2018, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why this appeal should not be transferred to the Commonwealth Court pursuant to Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015) (challenges to the computation of credit for time served should be raised in an original action in the Commonwealth Court).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ocasio-Marrero, R.
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511 , 512–513 (Pa. Super. 1989) (calculation of time-served is determined by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), and any challenge to the DOC’s computation of time must be brought in an original action in the Commonwealth Court). -4-
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hammond, E.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa.Super. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis, T. v. Thompson, B.
This Court has determined that “[i]f the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau's computation.” Commonwealth v. Heredita, 97 A.3d 392, 395 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 524 (Pa. 2014) see also Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879-880 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citing McCray v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 582 Pa. 440 , 872 A.2d 1127, 1131 (2005)). (stating “[w]here discretionar…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McCollum, N.
“Accordingly, if the PCRA offers a remedy for an appellant’s claim, it is the sole avenue of relief and the PCRA time limitations apply.” Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2011) (noting that this Court has “repeatedly held that any petition filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a PCRA petition.” (citation and ellipses omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, W.
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lloyd, D.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
“Accordingly, if the PCRA offers a remedy for an appellant’s claim, it is the sole avenue of relief and the PCRA time limitations apply.” Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 3 The trial court did not order Lloyd to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. -3- J-S70033- 16 A.3d 754 , 770 (Pa. 2013) (same); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (providing that a defendant must generally file any PCRA petition within one year of the date that the judgment becomes final).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Miles, W.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Robinson, L.
See Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392, 394-95 , 395 n.4 (Pa.Super. 2014); accord Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879-80 (Pa.Super. 2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Colon, A.
Accord Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing the different types of claims a prisoner may make regarding credit for time served and the appropriate mechanism for each claim). -6- J-S15040-22 Colon argues in his first issue that the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to entertain his petition for clarification and/or correction of his sentence.
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Conyers, J.
See generally, Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. 2015).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Cummings, W.
See generally, Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. 2015).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Pagan, J.
See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015). -3- J-S04012-18 Appellant sets forth a single question for our review: 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Heiland, K.
See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa.Super. 2015) (holding original action in Commonwealth Court was proper procedural avenue for defendant to pursue his claim that Department of Corrections miscalculated credit for time served); Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 628 Pa. 637 , 104 A.3d 524 (2014) (explaining appropriate vehicle for redress of appellant’s claim that Department of Corrections failed to award him credit for time served, as stated by sentencing court, is original action in Commonwealth Court challenging computation of sentence). -6- J-S…
cited
Cited "see"
Tony Bennett v. Superintendent Graterford SCI
See Commonwealth v. Wyatt , 115 A.3d 876 , 878 (Pa. Super. 2015) ; see also 18 Pa. Cons.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Siluk, M., Jr.
See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quoting McCray v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 582 Pa. 440 , 872 A.2d 1127, 1131 (2005) (“Where discretionary actions and criteria -6- J-S77036-17 are not being contested, but rather the actions of the Department in computing an inmate's maximum and minimum dates of confinement are being challenged, an action for mandamus remains viable as a means for examining whether statutory requirements have been met”)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Wyatt, K.
See Wyatt v. Beard, Docket No. 558 M.D. 2007, 2008 WL 9405258 (Pa. Commw. 2008) (unpublished memorandum), aff'd, 979 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2009). 8 Additionally, in December of 2010, Wyatt filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was not docketed until February 11, 2011. -4- J-S16025-16 Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa. Super. 2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Shipley, J.
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2015); Fowler, supra at 592-93 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Stetter, J.
Id. at 395 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511, 512-13 (Pa. Super. 1989)); see also Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa. Super. 2015).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Dicks, W.
See also Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa.Super. 2015) (holding that original action in Commonwealth Court was only procedural avenue that defendant could pursue claim on appeal that DOC miscalculated credit for time-served); Commonwealth ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Byrd, H.
See also Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa.Super. 2015) (holding that an original action in Commonwealth Court was the only procedural avenue by which defendant could pursue his claim on appeal that the DOC miscalculated his credit for time-served); Commonwealth ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com v. Stanley, C.
This Court has determined that “[i]f the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau's computation.” Heredia, 97 A.3d at 395 ; see also Wyatt, 115 A.3d at 879– 880 (citing McCray v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 582 Pa. 440 , 872 A.2d 1127, 1131 (2005)) (stating “[w]here discretionary actions and criteria are not being contested, but rather the actions of the Department in computing an inmate's maximum and …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Superintendent McGinley, T. v. Watts, L.
See also Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. 2015) (issues relating to the calculation of sentence must be raised through administrative proceedings or in the Commonwealth Court).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James EVERETT, III, pro se Cutis [sic]
v.
Hon. Steven R. GEROFF, Phila. County Supt. Jerome Walsh, SCI-Dallas Mrs. Kathleen Kane, Atty. Gen. Penna. Mr. Seth Williams, D.A. Phila County
v.
Hon. Steven R. GEROFF, Phila. County Supt. Jerome Walsh, SCI-Dallas Mrs. Kathleen Kane, Atty. Gen. Penna. Mr. Seth Williams, D.A. Phila County
No. 32 EM 2015.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 29, 2015.
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED, and the Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.