Sandy gravely disrupted the ability of experts to reach SCI-Greene and perform the necessary evaluations, thus depriving [Applicant] of the opportunity for a full and meaningful clemency hearing. Did the Court err in its original ruling in its conclusion that the filing was ex parte and that it lacked jurisdiction to grant access for the experts and a stay of execution? On November 2, 2012, the common pleas court filed an opinion setting forth the reasoning in support of its order granting access but denying a stay of execution. In terms of the stay matter, the court initially questioned whether it had jurisdiction as no motion was directly before it and in light of Section 9545(c) of the Post Conviction Relief Act. See Commonwealth v. Morris, 565 Pa. 1, 771 A.2d 721, 739-40 (2001) (<HOLDING>). To the degree that jurisdiction was present,
holding that plaintiffs are not required  to have asked for the precise form of relief that the district court may ultimately grant holding that a lower court may not exercise its inherent right to grant a stay except within the confines enumerated by  9545c of the post conviction relief act holding that the automatic stay applies to the debt ors appeal of an order entered in action brought against the debtor in the lower court holding a court of criminal appeals may not exercise its sentence approval powers to criticize a state court conviction holding that zoning boards of appeal do not have the inherent power to grant a rehearing