ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
(1) Does the Superior Court’s ruling that Petitioner’s failure to challenge the involuntary commitment Order within thirty days of it’s [sic] entry was fatal to his petition for Ex-pungement conflict with this Honorable Court’s holding in Wolfe v. Beal, 477 Pa. 477, 384 A.2d 1187 (1978) and other holdings of the Superior Court?
(2) Does the Superior Court’s holding affirming the procedure employed by the lower Court which had conducted the review of the tape recording of Petitioner’s 303 hearing, without a record being made and without Petitioner’s notice of the hearing or his presence at same, contrary to fundamental principles of due process, conflict with decisions of this Court and the Superior Court and depart so far from accepted judicial practices as to call for the exercise of this Honorable Court’s supervisory authority?