COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEPHEN KALICHAK
No. 1201 & 1202 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 15 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/30/2008
Appeal from the Judgments of Sentence of April 17, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Criminal Division at Nos. CP-23-CR-0001781-2005 and CP-23-CR-0004017-2004
Before: BENDER, TAMILIA AND COLVILLE*, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This case involves two consolidated appeals from the judgments of sentence imposed following revocation of Appellant’s probation and parole. Appellant seeks to challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Counsel has filed a petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and an accompanying brief. We grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the judgments of sentence.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Superior Court - 1/22/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELEANOR JOHNSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELEANOR JOHNSON
No. 1394 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 14 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/22/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal Division at No. MR#06-001110
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Eleanor Johnson appeals from the April 20, 2006 order denying her application for a private detective license under the Private Detective Act of 1953, 22 P.S. §§ 11-30 (the “Act”). For a reason other than that relied upon by the trial court, we affirm.
No. 1394 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 14 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/22/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal Division at No. MR#06-001110
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Eleanor Johnson appeals from the April 20, 2006 order denying her application for a private detective license under the Private Detective Act of 1953, 22 P.S. §§ 11-30 (the “Act”). For a reason other than that relied upon by the trial court, we affirm.
Superior Court - 1/22/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VINCENT DEMOR
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VINCENT DEMOR
No. 1118 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 11 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 1/22/2008 Filed: 1/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 31, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal No. CC200512184
Before: JOYCE, BENDER and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Concurring Opinion Opinion by: BENDER, J.
In this Commonwealth appeal from the order granting the suppression motion of Appellee, Vincent Demor, the Court is presented with the question of whether an off-duty paramedic acts as an agent or instrument of the state in detaining a suspected drunk driver. Because we find that he does not, we reverse and remand.
No. 1118 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 11 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 1/22/2008 Filed: 1/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 31, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal No. CC200512184
Before: JOYCE, BENDER and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Concurring Opinion Opinion by: BENDER, J.
In this Commonwealth appeal from the order granting the suppression motion of Appellee, Vincent Demor, the Court is presented with the question of whether an off-duty paramedic acts as an agent or instrument of the state in detaining a suspected drunk driver. Because we find that he does not, we reverse and remand.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Superior Court - 1/17/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE NOBLES
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE NOBLES
No. 1400 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 13 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/17/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 19, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP#0401-0752 1/1
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, JJ. and McEWEN, PJE.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court determination requiring it to reveal the location from which an officer made his observations of Nobles’s alleged drug transaction.
No. 1400 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 13 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/17/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 19, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP#0401-0752 1/1
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, JJ. and McEWEN, PJE.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court determination requiring it to reveal the location from which an officer made his observations of Nobles’s alleged drug transaction.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Superior Court 1/8/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CLAYTON LEROY LISTON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CLAYTON LEROY LISTON
No. 1159 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 12 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/8/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, August 19, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at Nos. 1213 and 1231 of 2004
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD,* BOWES, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY,* AND DANIELS,* JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
We determined this case should be considered by the court sitting en banc to decide what procedure the trial court should follow when faced with a PCRA petition requesting restoration of the petitioner’s appellate rights nunc pro tunc, and also making “other” claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness. We hold that where, as in the case sub judice, the court, on collateral review, grants the petitioner the right to appeal nunc pro tunc, it shall additionally grant the filing of post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc. This will enable the court to establish a record upon which this court may dispose of any ineffectiveness claims on the direct appeal. Such a rule best promotes judicial economy and obviates the need for the petitioner to file a subsequent PCRA petition re-raising the identical claims, frequently resulting in the filing of a second appeal to this court.
No. 1159 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 12 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/8/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, August 19, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at Nos. 1213 and 1231 of 2004
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD,* BOWES, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY,* AND DANIELS,* JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
We determined this case should be considered by the court sitting en banc to decide what procedure the trial court should follow when faced with a PCRA petition requesting restoration of the petitioner’s appellate rights nunc pro tunc, and also making “other” claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness. We hold that where, as in the case sub judice, the court, on collateral review, grants the petitioner the right to appeal nunc pro tunc, it shall additionally grant the filing of post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc. This will enable the court to establish a record upon which this court may dispose of any ineffectiveness claims on the direct appeal. Such a rule best promotes judicial economy and obviates the need for the petitioner to file a subsequent PCRA petition re-raising the identical claims, frequently resulting in the filing of a second appeal to this court.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Superior Court 1/4/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHESTER HOLLMAN, III
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHESTER HOLLMAN, III
No. 3018 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 4 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 1/15/2008 Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order of September 22, 2006,in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Criminal Division at No. CP#9109-3311 1/1, 3313-16, 3319
Before: TODD, COLVILLE AND ANTHONY, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Null
No. 3018 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 4 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 1/15/2008 Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order of September 22, 2006,in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Criminal Division at No. CP#9109-3311 1/1, 3313-16, 3319
Before: TODD, COLVILLE AND ANTHONY, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Null
Superior Court 1/4/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BONNIE DEAN
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BONNIE DEAN
No. 2698 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 3 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Order September 11, 2006,In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County,Criminal Division at No. CP-13-CR-0000707-2005.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, BOWES and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the order granting a motion to suppress filed by Appellee Bonnie Dean on grounds that: (1) the narcotic agents had probable cause to make a warrantless entry into Appellee’s hotel room; and (2) the entry was consensual, which vitiated the need to obtain a search warrant and validated seizure of the evidence therefrom. We affirm.
No. 2698 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 3 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Order September 11, 2006,In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County,Criminal Division at No. CP-13-CR-0000707-2005.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, BOWES and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the order granting a motion to suppress filed by Appellee Bonnie Dean on grounds that: (1) the narcotic agents had probable cause to make a warrantless entry into Appellee’s hotel room; and (2) the entry was consensual, which vitiated the need to obtain a search warrant and validated seizure of the evidence therefrom. We affirm.
Superior court 1/4/2008 - NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTHONY YUNGWIRTH
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTHONY YUNGWIRTH
No. 1260 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 10 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 27, 2006in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny CountyCivil, No. GD 05-30457
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, BOWES, GANTMAN, MCCAFFERY, DANIELS, JJ:
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) appeals from the declaratory judgment entered in favor of Anthony Yungwirth (“Yungwirth”). The trial court concluded that the exclusion contained within the Nationwide policies issued to Yungwirth and his father impermissibly narrowed the uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage provided by the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”). , On appeal, this Court is presented with an issue that involves the interplay between the MVFRL and the Snowmobile All-Terrain Vehicle Law (“SATVL”). Upon review, we conclude that the exclusion contained in the Nationwide policies at issue does not impermissibly narrow the UM coverage as required by the MVFRL. Accordingly, we reverse.
No. 1260 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 10 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 27, 2006in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny CountyCivil, No. GD 05-30457
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, BOWES, GANTMAN, MCCAFFERY, DANIELS, JJ:
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) appeals from the declaratory judgment entered in favor of Anthony Yungwirth (“Yungwirth”). The trial court concluded that the exclusion contained within the Nationwide policies issued to Yungwirth and his father impermissibly narrowed the uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage provided by the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”). , On appeal, this Court is presented with an issue that involves the interplay between the MVFRL and the Snowmobile All-Terrain Vehicle Law (“SATVL”). Upon review, we conclude that the exclusion contained in the Nationwide policies at issue does not impermissibly narrow the UM coverage as required by the MVFRL. Accordingly, we reverse.
Superior Court 1/4/2008 - JOHN NOVITSKI AND THERESA NOVITSKI v. MATTHEW RUSAK
JOHN NOVITSKI AND THERESA NOVITSKI v. MATTHEW RUSAK
No. 431 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 9 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered April 4, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne CountyCivil at No(s): 3717-C of 2004
Before: STEVENS, BENDER, and McCAFFERY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in favor of Appellees John and Theresa Novitski in the amount of $443,040.14. Appellant Matthew Rusak contends the trial court should have granted Appellant a new trial, molded the verdict, or granted remittitur on the basis the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding loss of future earning capacity since there was no proper foundation for the testimony. We affirm.
No. 431 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 9 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered April 4, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne CountyCivil at No(s): 3717-C of 2004
Before: STEVENS, BENDER, and McCAFFERY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in favor of Appellees John and Theresa Novitski in the amount of $443,040.14. Appellant Matthew Rusak contends the trial court should have granted Appellant a new trial, molded the verdict, or granted remittitur on the basis the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding loss of future earning capacity since there was no proper foundation for the testimony. We affirm.
Superior Court 1/4/2008 - DONALD L. BRINK, JR. & DONNA J. BRINK, HIS WIFE v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP
DONALD L. BRINK, JR. & DONNA J. BRINK, HIS WIFE v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP
No. 1958 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 7 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on October20, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,Civil Division, at No(s). 2006 CV 336.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, DANIELS, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, Donald L. Brink, Jr. and Donna J. Brink, appeal from the order entered on October 20, 2006. The order in question granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Appellee, Erie Insurance Group (“Erie”), and denied Appellants’ cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. After careful review, we affirm.
No. 1958 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 7 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on October20, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,Civil Division, at No(s). 2006 CV 336.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, DANIELS, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, Donald L. Brink, Jr. and Donna J. Brink, appeal from the order entered on October 20, 2006. The order in question granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Appellee, Erie Insurance Group (“Erie”), and denied Appellants’ cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. After careful review, we affirm.
Superior Court 1/4/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v.MICHAEL LANE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v.MICHAEL LANE
No. 1602 EDA 2004 2008 PA Super 8 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated December 16, 2003,In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,Criminal Division at No. 3487 of 2002
Before: JOYCE, STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, KLEIN, BENDER, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY and PANELLA, JJ.
Opinion by: McCAFFERY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Appellant, Michael Lane, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of three counts of robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of possessing an instrument of crime. Specifically, Appellant argues that a jury, rather than the judge, should have determined whether to sentence Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714. We conclude that because the protections of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution do not extend to the fact of prior convictions and because it is solely the existence of two prior convictions that caused Appellant to be eligible to possibly be sentenced within a range of increased penalties, the trial court properly imposed the judgment of sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
No. 1602 EDA 2004 2008 PA Super 8 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated December 16, 2003,In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,Criminal Division at No. 3487 of 2002
Before: JOYCE, STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, KLEIN, BENDER, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY and PANELLA, JJ.
Opinion by: McCAFFERY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Appellant, Michael Lane, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of three counts of robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of possessing an instrument of crime. Specifically, Appellant argues that a jury, rather than the judge, should have determined whether to sentence Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714. We conclude that because the protections of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution do not extend to the fact of prior convictions and because it is solely the existence of two prior convictions that caused Appellant to be eligible to possibly be sentenced within a range of increased penalties, the trial court properly imposed the judgment of sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Superior Court 1/3/2008 - JF v. DB
J.F. v. D.B.
No. 752 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 2 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered March 27, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Domestic Relations Division at No. NS 200601089
Before: MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN and ANTHONY?, JJ.
Opinion by: ANTHONY, J.
Concurring Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, J.F., appeals from the March 27, 2007 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County denying his request for the reimbursement of child support payments made to Appellee, D.B., for the care of Appellant’s three minor sons. Upon review, we affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history follow.
No. 752 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 2 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered March 27, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Domestic Relations Division at No. NS 200601089
Before: MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN and ANTHONY?, JJ.
Opinion by: ANTHONY, J.
Concurring Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, J.F., appeals from the March 27, 2007 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County denying his request for the reimbursement of child support payments made to Appellee, D.B., for the care of Appellant’s three minor sons. Upon review, we affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history follow.
Superior Court 1/3/2008 - ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. E.L., a minor, by and through her Parents and Natural Guardians, DAVID LOWRY and TINA YODER
ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. E.L., a minor, by and through her Parents and Natural Guardians, DAVID LOWRY and TINA YODER
No. 569 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 5 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 1/17/2008 Filed: 1/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered February 28, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, Civil Division at No. 431 Civil 2006
Before: TODD, BOWES AND COLVILLE, JJ
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Dissenting Opinion Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Appellant appeals from an order which granted the motion of Appellee Erie Insurance Exchange (“Erie”) for judgment on the pleadings and denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand.
No. 569 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 5 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 1/17/2008 Filed: 1/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered February 28, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, Civil Division at No. 431 Civil 2006
Before: TODD, BOWES AND COLVILLE, JJ
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Dissenting Opinion Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Appellant appeals from an order which granted the motion of Appellee Erie Insurance Exchange (“Erie”) for judgment on the pleadings and denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand.
Superior Court 1/3/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. HOPE L. WILLIAMS -
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. HOPE L. WILLIAMS
No. 827 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 6 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/3/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 5, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Criminal, No. 920 Criminal 2005
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, BOWES, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY, AND DANIELS, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Hope L. Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, following her convictions for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and careless driving . Specifically, Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court erred when it denied her omnibus pre-trial suppression motion, where there was insufficient probable cause to arrest Appellant for DUI, and her incriminating statements were elicited before she was given proper Miranda warnings. We are also asked to decide whether the court has the statutory authority to impose a sentence under the Intermediate Punishment Program (“IPP”), in light of the mandatory sentencing provisions of the DUI statute, which call for a fixed term of imprisonment. We hold, under the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause to arrest Appellant for DUI; Appellant was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda when she made incriminating statements; and the court had the statutory authority and discretion to sentence Appellant to IPP, if both Appellant and the program qualified. Accordingly, we affirm.
No. 827 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 6 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 1/3/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 5, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Criminal, No. 920 Criminal 2005
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, BOWES, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY, AND DANIELS, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Hope L. Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, following her convictions for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and careless driving . Specifically, Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court erred when it denied her omnibus pre-trial suppression motion, where there was insufficient probable cause to arrest Appellant for DUI, and her incriminating statements were elicited before she was given proper Miranda warnings. We are also asked to decide whether the court has the statutory authority to impose a sentence under the Intermediate Punishment Program (“IPP”), in light of the mandatory sentencing provisions of the DUI statute, which call for a fixed term of imprisonment. We hold, under the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause to arrest Appellant for DUI; Appellant was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda when she made incriminating statements; and the court had the statutory authority and discretion to sentence Appellant to IPP, if both Appellant and the program qualified. Accordingly, we affirm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
