Ground I. 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?

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. § 9720 deemed patently unconstitutional on its face and void to the instant case thereby requiring re-sentencing of Mr. Barlow?

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?