Did the Pennsylvania Courts err in denying the instant Post Conviction Relief Act Petition for failing to recognize that the P.C.R.A. statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541, et seq., grants express authority to the Court to correct a sentence for persons 'serving' illegal sentences?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW GroundI. Did the Pennsylvania Courts err in denying the instant Post Conviction Relief Act Petition for failing to recognize that the P.C.R.A. statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541, et seq., grants express | a authority to the Court to correct a sentence for persons “serving” illegal ‘ ' ' sentences? ; ; a (Proposed Answer in the Positive) . ; II. Did the Pennsylvania Courts err in denying the instant Post Conviction Relief Act Petition due to failing to apply the “void ab initio” : doctrine to the statute found at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718 deemed patently _ : unconstitutional on its face and void to the instant case thereby ; ; requiring re-sentencing of Mr. Simms? _ . ; (Proposed Answer in the Positive) / ; . oo ‘PARTIES | a The Pro Se Petitioner in the above captioned matter is Mr. Shawn Michael . Simms, (Mr. Simms), who resides at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, 1 Rockview Place, Bellefonte, PA 16823. Respondent in the above captioned matter ; is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania represented by Leo J. Ciaramitaro Esq,, District Attorney, whose office is located at 2 North Main Street, Suite 206, _ Greensburg, PA 15601. Mark Garman is represented by Theron Richard Perez, _ Esq., Chief Counsel of the Department of Corrections, whose office is located at 1920 Technology Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. , ; |