Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): when a psychiatric expert was appointed before his plea, and he was not entitled to appointment of another expert to aid in the presentation of a PCRA petition. Id. at 5-6. The court then concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the PCRA petition. Appellant appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal of the petition in a memorandum opinion filed on February 13, 2002. The panel rejected appellant’s claim that his brain injury, and its alleged effect upon his ability to discern the facts upon which his petition was premised, qualified under the “after-discovered” evidence exception to the PCRA time-bar. The panel deemed this.question to be controlled by Superior Court’s previous decision in Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 780 A.2d 700, 703 (Pa.Super.2001) (<HOLDING>). This Court granted further review, in part to 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing exception (B) recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception (C) holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional (D) holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations (E) holding that claim of mental illness does not fit any exception to the statutes time limits
Output (English): holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional