Court Opinion

ID: 9400595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 16:10:52.110965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:46.828895
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas E. Bold, Jr.                          :
                                             :
               v.                            :       No. 784 C.D. 2020
                                             :
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,                :
Department of Transportation,                :
Bureau of Driver Licensing,                  :
                  Appellant                  :

PER CURIAM

                                 CORRECTING ORDER

      AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2023, the Opinion in the above-captioned
matter, filed on November 21, 2022, is corrected1 as follows:

      1
          As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained:

                       The law is clear that a court may modify or rescind any order
               within 30 days after its entry, if no appeal has been taken. [Section
               5505 of the Judicial Code,] 42 Pa. C.S. §5505; Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a).
               Thus, where a Notice of Appeal has been filed, the trial court cannot
               act further in the matter. However, this rule must be read in
               conjunction with a court’s inherent powers “to amend its records, to
               correct mistakes of the clerk or other officer of the court,
               inadvertencies of counsel, or supply defects or omissions in the
               record, even after the lapse of the term.” Commonwealth v. Cole,
               [263 A.2d 339, 341 (Pa. 1970)]; see also Commonwealth v. Rohrer,
               719 A.2d 1078, 1080 (Pa. Super. 1998); Commonwealth v. Quinlan,
               [639 A.2d 1235, 1239 (Pa. Super. 1994)]. For example, in Cole the
               court held that an order granting both a new trial and a motion in
               arrest of judgment was patently erroneous as such relief was
               irreconcilable. This [C]ourt concluded that the lower court had an
               inherent power to correct such obvious and patent mistakes beyond
               the expiration of the thirty-day statutory limit. Cole, 263 A.2d at
               341. Thus, under limited circumstances, even where the court
               would normally be divested of jurisdiction, a court may have the
               power to correct patent and obvious mistakes.

Commonwealth v. Klein, 781 A.2d 1133, 1135 (Pa. 2001).
            1. Page 13 of the Majority Opinion is amended to reflect the deletion of
“Judge McCullough dissents.” and “Judge Fizzano Cannon dissents.”
            2. Page 12 of the Dissenting Opinion is amended to reflect the addition
of “Judge McCullough and Judge Fizzano Cannon join in the dissent.”