Comm. v. Holmes, C., Aplt., No. 22eap2004 and Comm. v. Whitfield, R., Aplt. (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-177-2006] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, : : Appellant : : : : : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : RUFUS WHITFIELD, : : Appellee : No. 22 EAP 2004 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court Entered on November 18, 2003 at No. 1586 EDA 2002, reversing the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, entered on April 9, 2002 at 1287 March Term, 1996 837 A.2d 501 ARGUED: October 18, 2004 RESUBMITTED: November 21, 2006 No. 24 EAP 2004 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court Entered on August 22, 2003 at No. 3194 EDA 2002, affirming the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, entered on October 10, 2002 at 9106-2342-44 1/1 ARGUED: October 18, 2004 RESUBMITTED: November 21, 2006 CONCURRING OPINION JUSTICE FITZGERALD DECIDED: October 16, 2007 I agree with the majority s conclusion that trial courts retain the inherent authority to correct patent errors they have made, specifically and especially in the context of recognizing and rectifying illegal sentences where justice requires it. I therefore join the majority in the matter of Commonwealth v. Holmes. With respect to Commonwealth v. Whitfield, however, I concur in the result only. I believe that the courts below ultimately reached the only just result by vacating Whitfield s illegal sentence, and I would not have granted allocatur in this matter. [J-177-2006] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
