Court Opinion

ID: 9759900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:32:15.394242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:06.030665
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring:
While I wholeheartedly agree with the insightful analysis of my brethren, I feel it necessary to write separately nonetheless in an effort to clarify the murky caselaw that 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 has generated.
Essentially, the wording of § 5505 has created a situation in which patent sentencing errors may be corrected out of time, while latent errors are subject to strict timeliness considerations. This dichotomy has created situations in which the obvious intent of the sentencing judge has been frustrated and criminal defendants have been the beneficiaries of a system in which mountains of paperwork and crowded dockets sometimes lead to inadvertent errors. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 433 Pa.Super. 111, 639 A.2d 1235 (1994); Commonwealth v. Kubiac, 379 Pa.Super. 402, 550 A.2d 219 (1988). *351While this result may be unintended and even absurd, it is solely the province of the legislature to amend the statute to prevent such windfalls.
Because the instant case presents a situation in which the error was obvious on the face of the document, I agree with my learned colleagues that the trial judge retained the jurisdiction to modify the sentencing order and thus effectuate the court’s original intent.1

. The record reveals that the December 5, 1994, order provided for a period of eight to twenty-three months imprisonment to be served on sixty consecutive weekends. This is a mathematical impossibility, thus creating a patent error.