patent error in Pennsylvania

2022See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 65 (Pa. 2007) (holding that the jurisdictional limitations in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 do not impinge on the inherent power of the courts to correct a patent error). -4- J-S11043-22 Commonwealth v. Edwards, 906 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

2019Holmes, 933 A.2d at 66-67 ; see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding “that the duplicative imposition of credit for time served constitutes a patent and obvious mistake that is amenable to correction after the thirty-day period prescribed in [Section] 5505”); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 33 A.3d 89, 92-93 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that the trial court’s failure to give proper consideration to character evidence was not a patent error that would permit correction of the verdict following a bench trial, and “[t]he weight accorded by the trial court to chara

2011In reaching our decision we are cognizant that in Commonwealth v. Klein, 566 Pa. 396 , 781 A.2d 1133, 1135 (2001), our Supreme Court found that a patent error existed even though the error was not obvious on the face of the sentencing order, but was based on third-party information.

2011In reaching our decision we are cognizant that in Commonwealth v. Klein, 566 Pa. 396 , 781 A.2d 1133, 1135 (2001), our Supreme Court found that a patent error existed even though the error was not obvious on the face of the sentencing order, but was based on third-party information.

2024See Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219, 1228 (Pa. 2013) (“[I]t [is] the ‘obviousness’ of the illegal and erroneous nature of the sentences reflected in the trial courts’ orders rather than the illegality itself that triggered the courts’ authority [to correct a patent error].”). -5- J-A03033-24 days on electronic home monitoring with a concurrent term of eighteen months’ probation. 1925(a) Opinion, 4/19/23, at 3 (unpaginated).

2023See Commonwealth v. Hoover, 231 A.3d 785 , 792 (Pa. 2020) (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court) (noting that, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 67 (Pa. 2007), “a trial court’s inherent power of correction encompasses patent and obvious errors that appear on the face of an order, [and] it also extends to such errors that emerge upon consideration of information in the ____________________________________________ 3 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(i)-(viii) (providing claims eligible for relief must arise from constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, unl

2026“However, the burden shifts to the executor to present exculpatory evidence when ‘a patent error has occurred’ or when ‘a significant discrepancy appears on the face of the record.’” Id. (citation omitted).

2011In re Estate of Westin, 874 A.2d 139, 144-145 (Pa.Super.2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2021See also Siluk v. Wetzel (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 524 M.D. 2013, filed June 5, 2014) (sentencing court’s imposition of flat 10- year sentences was an obvious and patent mistake, capable of correction, where the mandatory aggregate term amounted to 51 years and 9 months to 105 years), aff’d, 110 A.3d 993 (Pa. 2015).4 In Powell, we determined that this exception was not met, explaining that “[a]n omission from an original sentence . . . is not a patent error per se.” 14 A.3d at 917 n.5.

2021Powell v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 14 A.3d 912 , 917 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citing Quinlan, supra, and -7- J-S07029-21 observing that “[a]n omission from an original sentence … is not a patent error per se.”).

2021Powell v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 14 A.3d 912 , 917 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citing Quinlan, supra, and -7- J-S07029-21 observing that “[a]n omission from an original sentence … is not a patent error per se.”).

2011"An omission from an original sentence ... is not a patent error per se.” Id.

2015Commonwealth v. Cooper, 482 A.2d 1014, 1021 (Pa.Super. 1984).

1994Commonwealth v. Cooper, 333 Pa.Super. 559 , 482 A.2d 1014 (1984).

2005However, the burden shifts to the executor to present exculpatory evidence when “a patent error has occurred” or when “a significant discrepancy appears on the face of the record.” Ellis, supra at 285 , 333 A.2d at 730 ; Campbell, supra at 1105 ; Geniviva, supra at 311 . ¶ 15 Finally, the jurisdiction of orphans’ court over a decedent’s estate and its executor does not necessarily end with issuance of the court’s decree and schedule of distribution.

1997Ellis, supra; Lohm, supra; Maurice, supra; Geniviva, supra. “However, where a patent error has occurred, the burden of going forward with evidence demonstrating prudent management is on the executor.” Ellis, 460 Pa. at 285 , 333 A.2d at 730 .

2022See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 65 (Pa. 2007) (holding that the jurisdictional limitations in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 do not impinge on the inherent power of the courts to correct a patent error). -4- J-S11043-22 Commonwealth v. Edwards, 906 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

2021In re Estate of Miller, 18 A.3d 1163, 1174 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc).

2021In fact, to rest an adaptive deficits conclusion solely upon the subject’s adaptive strengths, rather than deficits, or even to weigh the strengths against the deficits, is to work a patent violation of the current state of the law of Atkins- claims review.60 By focusing upon what Flor could do, rather than on what Flor could not do, the PCRA court ran afoul of current medical standards and, therefore, of Atkins and its progeny.61 The PCRA court’s analysis mirrors that of the lower court in Moore-I, which also focused for this prong upon Moore’s adaptive strengths, instead of upon his adaptive

2021In fact, to rest an adaptive deficits conclusion solely upon the subject’s adaptive strengths, rather than deficits, or even to weigh the strengths against the deficits, is to work a patent violation of the current state of the law of Atkins- claims review.60 By focusing upon what Flor could do, rather than on what Flor could not do, the PCRA court ran afoul of current medical standards and, therefore, of Atkins and its progeny.61 The PCRA court’s analysis mirrors that of the lower court in Moore-I, which also focused for this prong upon Moore’s adaptive strengths, instead of upon his adaptive

2021See also Siluk v. Wetzel (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 524 M.D. 2013, filed June 5, 2014) (sentencing court’s imposition of flat 10- year sentences was an obvious and patent mistake, capable of correction, where the mandatory aggregate term amounted to 51 years and 9 months to 105 years), aff’d, 110 A.3d 993 (Pa. 2015).4 In Powell, we determined that this exception was not met, explaining that “[a]n omission from an original sentence . . . is not a patent error per se.” 14 A.3d at 917 n.5.

2020Muniz, 164 A.3d at 1224 (Wecht, J. concurring). -5- J-S23024-19 corpus powers or the court’s inherent authority to correct an illegal sentence or a patent error.

2020Id.

2020Although the court raised the question of merger and, after an initial hearing, treated the parties’ agreement that merger was in issue as an oral post-sentence motion, it neither vacated nor amended the September 27, 2019 sentence within 30 days of imposing it. ____________________________________________ 9 See also Commonwealth v. Martinez, 141 A.3d 485, 490 (Pa.Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Merolla, 909 A.2d 337, 341 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Bentley, 831 A.2d 668, 670 (Pa.Super. 2003). -6- J-S38020-20 Although a court has the inherent jurisdiction to correct a patent error in an or

2020Although the court raised the question of merger and, after an initial hearing, treated the parties’ agreement that merger was in issue as an oral post-sentence motion, it neither vacated nor amended the September 27, 2019 sentence within 30 days of imposing it. ____________________________________________ 9 See also Commonwealth v. Martinez, 141 A.3d 485, 490 (Pa.Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Merolla, 909 A.2d 337, 341 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Bentley, 831 A.2d 668, 670 (Pa.Super. 2003). -6- J-S38020-20 Although a court has the inherent jurisdiction to correct a patent error in an or

2020Although the court raised the question of merger and, after an initial hearing, treated the parties’ agreement that merger was in issue as an oral post-sentence motion, it neither vacated nor amended the September 27, 2019 sentence within 30 days of imposing it. ____________________________________________ 9 See also Commonwealth v. Martinez, 141 A.3d 485, 490 (Pa.Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Merolla, 909 A.2d 337, 341 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Bentley, 831 A.2d 668, 670 (Pa.Super. 2003). -6- J-S38020-20 Although a court has the inherent jurisdiction to correct a patent error in an or

2020Although the court raised the question of merger and, after an initial hearing, treated the parties’ agreement that merger was in issue as an oral post-sentence motion, it neither vacated nor amended the September 27, 2019 sentence within 30 days of imposing it. ____________________________________________ 9 See also Commonwealth v. Martinez, 141 A.3d 485, 490 (Pa.Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Merolla, 909 A.2d 337, 341 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Bentley, 831 A.2d 668, 670 (Pa.Super. 2003). -6- J-S38020-20 Although a court has the inherent jurisdiction to correct a patent error in an or

2019See In re S.M., 176 A.3d 927, 934 (Pa. Super. 2017) (reiterating that “an appellate court cannot consider anything which is not part of the record in the case” (citation omitted)). -8- J-A18017-19 While we acknowledge the trial court’s ability to correct a patent error despite the absence of traditional jurisdiction, we cannot conclude that the error at issue was so obvious as to trigger the trial court’s inherent power.

2019Holmes, 933 A.2d at 66-67 ; see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding “that the duplicative imposition of credit for time served constitutes a patent and obvious mistake that is amenable to correction after the thirty-day period prescribed in [Section] 5505”); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 33 A.3d 89, 92-93 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that the trial court’s failure to give proper consideration to character evidence was not a patent error that would permit correction of the verdict following a bench trial, and “[t]he weight accorded by the trial court to chara

2019Holmes, 933 A.2d at 66-67 ; see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding “that the duplicative imposition of credit for time served constitutes a patent and obvious mistake that is amenable to correction after the thirty-day period prescribed in [Section] 5505”); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 33 A.3d 89, 92-93 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that the trial court’s failure to give proper consideration to character evidence was not a patent error that would permit correction of the verdict following a bench trial, and “[t]he weight accorded by the trial court to chara

2018See Holmes, 933 A.2d at 66 - 67. -3- J-S39038-18 We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review: “In reviewing the [dismissal] of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2017Commonwealth v. Reno, 303 Pa.Super. 166 , 449 A.2d 630, 632 (1982).

2017Commonwealth v. Reno, 303 Pa.Super. 166 , 449 A.2d 630, 632 (1982).