Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 65
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6503 (2026)

  Right to apply for writ.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 6503.  Right to apply for writ.

(a)  General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), an application for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention may be brought by or on behalf of any person restrained of his liberty within this Commonwealth under any pretense whatsoever.

(b)  Exception.--Where a person is restrained by virtue of sentence after conviction for a criminal offense, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had by post-conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 3× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(a) (application may "inquire into the cause of detention ") (emphasis added); Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008). · cites it 2× “"); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(b) ("[T]he writ of habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had by post-conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.”
Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 6503. . “The writ of error coram nobis to nullify or reform a judgment lies only where facts exist extrinsic of the record, unknown and unknowable by the exercise of diligence at the time of its rendition, and which would, if known, have prevented the judgment…”
Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 2007). · cites it 2× “ief because the delay in recalling him to serve his sentence violated his substantive due process rights and that direct appeal counsel was ineffective in failing to inform him of the outcome of his direct appeal, which, in turn hampered his ability to file a petition for…”
Commonwealth v. Haag, 809 A.2d 271 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 2× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(b) (emphasis added). Since the claims that would be the subject of such a state habeas corpus petition in this instance arguably were not available for collateral attack given the PCRA's time and serial petition restrictions and his then-incompetence, Haag…”
Commonwealth v. Masker, 34 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503. 8 Hence, this case diverges from the rationale of Judge and West where the issues raised were non-ineffectiveness claims pertaining to detention, but not challenges to the petitioners’ convictions or the sentencing phases of their cases.”
Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 712 A.2d 288 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 6503. [12] Article 1, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: § 14.”
Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). “Initially, we note that the question of whether a substantive due process claim regarding the delay in the handling of a PCRA is cognizable under the PCRA statute appears to be a matter of first impression.”
Commonwealth v. Isabell, 467 A.2d 1287 (Pa. 1983). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 6503 provides: (a) General rule.”
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 605 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 3× “Biehn denied the petition without a hearing, concluding that Wolfe’s petition was inappropriate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503. Wolfe now appeals from that order, and raises the following issues for our consideration: 1.”
Commonwealth v. Carbo, 822 A.2d 60 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Section 6503(a) of the Judicial Code provides, in relevant part, that "an application for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention may be brought by or on behalf of any person restrained of his liberty within this Commonwealth under any pretense whatsoever.”
Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999). “See generally 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503 (providing that where no other statutory post-conviction remedy is available, any individual "restrained of his liberty within this Commonwealth” may apply for a writ of habeas corpus).”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6503(a) — 8 cases
Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2001). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(a) (application may "inquire into the cause of detention ") (emphasis added); Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Carbo, 822 A.2d 60 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). “Section 6503(a) of the Judicial Code provides, in relevant part, that "an application for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention may be brought by or on behalf of any person restrained of his liberty within this Commonwealth under any pretense whatsoever.”
R.C. Scott v. J. Kersetes, E.M. Marsico, Jr. & K. Kane (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
S. Gardner v. Warden M. Capozza, SCI Pittsburgh, Sec. J.E. Wetzel (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
J. Gantz v. N. Giroux (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6503(b) — 35 cases
Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008). “"); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(b) ("[T]he writ of habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had by post-conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.”
Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 2007). “ief because the delay in recalling him to serve his sentence violated his substantive due process rights and that direct appeal counsel was ineffective in failing to inform him of the outcome of his direct appeal, which, in turn hampered his ability to file a petition for…”
Commonwealth v. Haag, 809 A.2d 271 (Pa. 2002). “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(b) (emphasis added). Since the claims that would be the subject of such a state habeas corpus petition in this instance arguably were not available for collateral attack given the PCRA's time and serial petition restrictions and his then-incompetence, Haag…”
Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013). “42 Pa.C.S. § 6503. . “The writ of error coram nobis to nullify or reform a judgment lies only where facts exist extrinsic of the record, unknown and unknowable by the exercise of diligence at the time of its rendition, and which would, if known, have prevented the judgment…”
Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). “Initially, we note that the question of whether a substantive due process claim regarding the delay in the handling of a PCRA is cognizable under the PCRA statute appears to be a matter of first impression.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.