Commonwealth v. Pelzer, K., Aplt. (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-18-2019] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. KEVIN PELZER, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 755 CAP Appeal from the Orders entered on January 29, 2003, March 25, 2003 and August 26, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at CP-51-CR1031752-1988, denying in part post conviction relief. (Nunc pro tunc appeal rights reinstated on June 1, 2017.) SUBMITTED: February 4, 2019 CONCURRING STATEMENT JUSTICE DOUGHERTY FILED: November 26, 2019 I join the Court’s decision to dismiss the instant appeal and remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for sentencing pursuant to our previous mandate in Commonwealth v. Daniels and Pelzer, 104 A.3d 267, 319 (Pa. 2014). However, it is my position that, should Pelzer seek future relief in connection with his recusal-based due process claim that led to the instant nunc pro tunc appeal before this Court, the remedy, if deemed warranted by the trial court, must be limited in the manner described in my Opinion in Support of Affirmance in Commonwealth v. Taylor, __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 5782165 (Pa. filed Nov. 6, 2019) (Dougherty, J., Opinion in Support of Affirmance) (the only constitutionally available remedy where a petitioner successfully pleads and proves in a timely PCRA petition that a constitutional violation occurred during the appellate process is reinstatement of the nunc pro tunc right to seek reargument of the original appellate decision pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2543). Justice Mundy joins this concurring statement.

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.