Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9501 (2026)

 Procedures, motions and other matters.

✓ 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

 

 

CHAPTER 95

POST-TRIAL MATTERS

 

 

Subchapter

A.  General Provisions

A.1. Victim and Witness Outreach

B.  Post Conviction Relief

C.  Report by District Attorney

D.  Unitary Review in Death Penalty Cases

 

Enactment.  The heading of Chapter 95 was added July 9, 1976, P.L.586, No.142, effective 60 days from the date of final enactment of the act of April 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, and the remaining provisions were added May 13, 1982, P.L.417, No.122, effective immediately.

 

 

SUBCHAPTER A

GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec.

9501.  Procedures, motions and other matters.

 

Enactment.  The heading of Subchapter A was added May 13, 1982, P.L.417, No.122, effective immediately, and the remaining provisions were added December 20, 1982, P.L.1409, No.326, effective in 60 days.

§ 9501.  Procedures, motions and other matters.

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter all post-trial procedures, motions and other matters relating to any criminal proceeding shall be conducted in the manner, at the times, on the terms and conditions and in the form prescribed by general rules.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Lawrence Lines v. David Larkins, Warden the Dist. Attorney of the Cnty. of Bucks the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pennsylvania, 208 F.3d 153 (3rd Cir. 2000).
Lawrence Lines v. David Larkins, Warden the Dist. Attorney of the Cnty. of Bucks the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pennsylvania, 208 F.3d 153 (3rd Cir. 2000). “On March 31, 1993, Lines filed a petition for collateral relief under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9501 et seq. He raised the following issues in that petition: 1.”
Commonwealth v. Lesko, 501 A.2d 200 (Pa. 1985). · cites it 2× “II, § 201, effective February 18, 1983; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9501. It provides: § 9501. Procedures, motions and other matters.”
Commonwealth v. Martorano, 89 A.3d 301 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9501 (providing that all post-trial matters relating to any criminal proceedings are governed by rules of criminal procedure); Pa.”
Whitney v. Horn, 170 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2000). “On November 13, 1990, Whitney filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadel *495 phia County a pro se petition seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 9501, et seq. After the PCRA court stayed his…”
Whitney v. Horn, 280 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2002). “Thereafter, Whitney filed four amended petitions in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal.”
Com. v. Kearns, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “Kearns' "Post-Convtctlon Relief Act Petition Pursuant to Title 42 Pa.C.S. §9501 . .' • . ', ! I t-:7� et seq.”
Frank Jeffs v. Sec'y Pennsylvania Departm (3rd Cir. 2017). “See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9501 et seq. After exhausting his remedies in state court, Jeffs petitioned the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Levi Stoltzfoos v. Sec'y Pennsylvania Departm (3rd Cir. 2018). “Stoltzfoos then sought relief in the state courts under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9501 et seq. He contended that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that § 5111(a)(3) violates the “single- subject rule” in Article…”
Cruz-west v. Superintendent, Sci Fayette (E.D. Pa. 2020). “On April 16, 2013, Cruz-West sought collateral relief pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Post- Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9501 , et seq. Counsel was appointed to represent Cruz-West.”
Bishop v. Fisher (E.D. Pa. 2020). “On July 21, 2006, Bishop sought collateral relief pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9501 , et seq. Counsel was appointed to represent Bishop.”
Kanu v. Kauffman (E.D. Pa. 2020). “In 2014, Kanu filed in the Court of Common Pleas a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9501 et seq. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted Kanu a new trial on the ground that his counsel was ineffective for failing…”
Robert Rega v. Sec'y Pennsylvania Departm (3rd Cir. 2024). “Rega unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence on direct appeal and in a proceeding under Pennsylvania’s Post- Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9501 et seq., in which he raised the claims at issue here.”
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.