Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 95
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9549 (2026)

  Hearing on petition (Repealed).

✓ 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

§ 9549.  Hearing on petition (Repealed).

 

1988 Repeal.  Section 9549 was repealed April 13, 1988, P.L.336, No.47, effective immediately. Section 6 of Act 47 provided that the repeal of section 9549 shall apply to all actions for collateral relief, whether statutory or common law, instituted on or after the effective date of Act 47, irrespective of the date of conviction or sentence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Weddington, 522 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Weddington, 522 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 3× “42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(a), (b). The controlling factor in determining whether a petition may be dismissed without a hearing is the status of the substantive assertions in the petition.”
Commonwealth v. Lesko, 501 A.2d 200 (Pa. 1985). · cites it 2× “The court may also deny a hearing on a specific question of fact when a full and fair evidentiary hearing upon that question was held at the original trial or at any later proceeding.”
Commonwealth v. Hart, 565 A.2d 1212 (Pa. 1989). “See 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9549. Order affirmed.”
Commonwealth v. Bishop, 645 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(b). The petition of counsel to withdraw is granted; order denying relief under the PCHA is affirmed.”
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 478 A.2d 474 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 2× “The majority today remands this case for an evidentiary hearing in order to determine the truth of appellant's allegations.”
Commonwealth v. Blagman, 504 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986). “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9549. Inasmuch as appellant’s claims are patently frivolous and without a trace of support, no hearing is required to deny the relief requested in his petition.”
Commonwealth v. Buehl, 588 A.2d 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “42 Pa. C.S. § 9549(b); Cf. Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. McClucas, 548 A.2d 573 (Pa. 1988). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(a), (b). The controlling factor in determining whether a petition may be dismissed without a hearing is the status of the substantive assertions in the petition.”
Com. v. Mitchell, Jr., K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “1988), asserting that a serial PCRA petition may be entertained where there has been a “miscarriage of justice,” and further relies on the PCRA’s statutory exception set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(b)(ii) for after-discovered evidence.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9549(a) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Weddington, 522 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1987). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(a), (b). The controlling factor in determining whether a petition may be dismissed without a hearing is the status of the substantive assertions in the petition.”
Commonwealth v. McClucas, 548 A.2d 573 (Pa. 1988). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(a), (b). The controlling factor in determining whether a petition may be dismissed without a hearing is the status of the substantive assertions in the petition.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9549(b) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Lesko, 501 A.2d 200 (Pa. 1985). “The court may also deny a hearing on a specific question of fact when a full and fair evidentiary hearing upon that question was held at the original trial or at any later proceeding.”
Commonwealth v. Weddington, 522 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1987). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(a), (b). The controlling factor in determining whether a petition may be dismissed without a hearing is the status of the substantive assertions in the petition.”
Commonwealth v. Bishop, 645 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(b). The petition of counsel to withdraw is granted; order denying relief under the PCHA is affirmed.”
Commonwealth v. Buehl, 588 A.2d 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “42 Pa. C.S. § 9549(b); Cf. Commonwealth v.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9549(b)(ii) — 1 case
Com. v. Mitchell, Jr., K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “1988), asserting that a serial PCRA petition may be entertained where there has been a “miscarriage of justice,” and further relies on the PCRA’s statutory exception set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9549(b)(ii) for after-discovered evidence.”
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.