JOSEPH COHEN AND GALIT DADOUN-COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF ETHAN AMOS DADOUN COHEN, DECEASED v. KATHLEEN FURIN, MSW, CCE, MATERNAL WELLNESS CENTER, RONNIE ROTHMAN, CNM, JULIANNA THOMPSON, CNM, WOMAN WISE MIDWIFERY, ERIC CARLSON, D.O., MAIN LINE PERINATAL ASSOCIATES, A DIVISION OF WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE GROUP OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC AND MAIN LINE HOSPITALS, INC., D/B/A LANKENAU HOSPITA
No. 1270 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 52 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/31/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 24, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil, No. 1401 February Term, 2007
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Joseph Cohen and Galit Dadoun-Cohen (“Plaintiffs”), individually and as co-administrators of the estate of their son, Ethan Amos Dadoun-Cohen, appeal from a trial court order transferring their case from Philadelphia County to Montgomery County. We affirm.
First, Plaintiffs claim that Kathleen Furin and Maternal Wellness Center, Philadelphia co-defendants, rendered care that creates venue in Philadelphia. The Furin/Maternal Wellness defendants, primarily social service providers, did not render medical care in this case. Their alleged negligence is referring Mrs. Dadoun-Cohen, who had a high risk pregnancy, to midwives instead of a physician. However, making a referral is not “furnishing health care services” to establish venue under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101.1.
Second, Plaintiffs claim that there is venue created because when Mrs. Dadoun-Cohen first went into labor, she placed a phone call from Philadelphia to Ronnie Rothman of Woman Wise midwifery in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs claim Ms. Rothman negligently told them to cancel an ambulance and wait before going to the hospital in Montgomery County. Pennsylvania case law establishes that telephone communication does not constitute “furnishing health care services” in a county when the physical services are to be rendered in another county.
Third, Plaintiffs further claim error because the trial judge refused to allow additional discovery after he granted preliminary objections and transferred venue from Philadelphia to Montgomery County. Because Plaintiffs have an obligation to present all evidence to the trial judge at the time of the initial preliminary objections, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny further discovery after the ruling had been made.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Superior Court 3/31/08 - POWER GAS MARKETING & TRANSMISSION, INC. v. CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION and LINN ENERGY, LLC
POWER GAS MARKETING & TRANSMISSION, INC. v. CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION and LINN ENERGY, LLC
No. 783 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 54 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/31/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, Civil Division, No(s): 11316 CD 2005
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Power Gas Marketing and Transmission, Inc. (Power), appeals nunc pro tunc from the February 27, 2007, Order granting Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Cabot) and Linn Energy, LLC’s (Linn Energy) respective motions for summary judgment and, conversely, denying Power’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
While we recognize that our Supreme Court stated the rule against perpetuities should be “remorselessly” applied, the rationale for such application was the Court’s reliance on the common law notion that “[The rule] is founded upon a sound principle of public policy.” Central Delaware County Authority, supra at 490, citing Barton, supra at 314. The General Assembly, nevertheless, has eliminated the rule against perpetuities for any interest created subsequent to January 1, 2007. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 6104(d), Applicability, added by 2006 Pa. Legis. Serv. 98. Given our General Assembly’s recent elimination of the rule as it pertains to interests created after January 1, 2007, it is difficult to argue our General Assembly, the ultimate arbiters of the soundness of this Commonwealth’s policy, still believes the rule is based “upon a sound principle of public policy.” See generally, Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Cas. Co. v. Black, 591 Pa. 221, 916 A.2d 569, 578 (2007) (“Public policy is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interest.”) (citations omitted).
No. 783 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 54 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/31/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, Civil Division, No(s): 11316 CD 2005
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Power Gas Marketing and Transmission, Inc. (Power), appeals nunc pro tunc from the February 27, 2007, Order granting Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Cabot) and Linn Energy, LLC’s (Linn Energy) respective motions for summary judgment and, conversely, denying Power’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
While we recognize that our Supreme Court stated the rule against perpetuities should be “remorselessly” applied, the rationale for such application was the Court’s reliance on the common law notion that “[The rule] is founded upon a sound principle of public policy.” Central Delaware County Authority, supra at 490, citing Barton, supra at 314. The General Assembly, nevertheless, has eliminated the rule against perpetuities for any interest created subsequent to January 1, 2007. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 6104(d), Applicability, added by 2006 Pa. Legis. Serv. 98. Given our General Assembly’s recent elimination of the rule as it pertains to interests created after January 1, 2007, it is difficult to argue our General Assembly, the ultimate arbiters of the soundness of this Commonwealth’s policy, still believes the rule is based “upon a sound principle of public policy.” See generally, Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Cas. Co. v. Black, 591 Pa. 221, 916 A.2d 569, 578 (2007) (“Public policy is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interest.”) (citations omitted).
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Superior Court 3/27/08 - SELENA Y. GLOVER v. PERICLES A. SEVERINO, SR.
SELENA Y. GLOVER v. PERICLES A. SEVERINO, SR.
No. 924 mda 2007 2008 PA Super 51 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/27/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster CountyDomestic Relations at No. 1995 2194
Before: KLEIN, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Appellant, Pericles A. Severino, Sr., appeals from the order entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas denying his request to challenge paternity. Because we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the record did not establish fraud and in applying the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, we reverse.
With regard to fraud, Appellant argues that the only reason for the limited and sporadic contact he had with the child was Appellee’s misrepresentations, noting that she “has and continues to assure [him] that he is the biological father despite the fact that the genetic tests conclusively prove that he is not the father.” (Appellant’s Brief at 11). He also argues that he demonstrated fraud on Appellee’s part through his testimony regarding his questioning of paternity when initially informed of the pregnancy, that she told him her “tubes were tied,” and that she had other sexual partners during the time period of the conception. Thus, he insists, this showing of fraud precludes application of the doctrine of paternity by estoppel.
Additionally, he argues that he has not held himself out as the child’s father or provided paternal support such that he should be estopped from challenging his paternity. He asserts that there has never been a father-son relationship between himself and the child.....
No. 924 mda 2007 2008 PA Super 51 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/27/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster CountyDomestic Relations at No. 1995 2194
Before: KLEIN, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Appellant, Pericles A. Severino, Sr., appeals from the order entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas denying his request to challenge paternity. Because we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the record did not establish fraud and in applying the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, we reverse.
With regard to fraud, Appellant argues that the only reason for the limited and sporadic contact he had with the child was Appellee’s misrepresentations, noting that she “has and continues to assure [him] that he is the biological father despite the fact that the genetic tests conclusively prove that he is not the father.” (Appellant’s Brief at 11). He also argues that he demonstrated fraud on Appellee’s part through his testimony regarding his questioning of paternity when initially informed of the pregnancy, that she told him her “tubes were tied,” and that she had other sexual partners during the time period of the conception. Thus, he insists, this showing of fraud precludes application of the doctrine of paternity by estoppel.
Additionally, he argues that he has not held himself out as the child’s father or provided paternal support such that he should be estopped from challenging his paternity. He asserts that there has never been a father-son relationship between himself and the child.....
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Superior Court 3/26/08 - DONNA M. ANNECHINO v. KENNETH M. JOIRE
DONNA M. ANNECHINO v. KENNETH M. JOIRE
No. 466 and 467 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 50 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,Civil, No. 01-01305
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Donna M. Annechino (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s order granting Kenneth M. Joire’s (Husband’s) petition to enforce a Property Settlement Agreement that was filed on May 15, 2001. After reviewing the cogent opinion of the distinguished trial judge, the Honorable Phyllis R. Streitel, we affirm.
"In this case, the parties entered into a Marital Property Settlement Agreement prior to the entry of the divorce decree in Chester County and did not incorporate or merge that agreement into the final divorce decree. Essentially, Wife claims that since the agreement was not incorporated and the pleadings did not include a count for equitable distribution, the Chester County court does not have the authority to enforce the Property Settlement Agreement and Husband’s only remedy is a separate civil action in equity.
We agree with Judge Streitel that the matter is controlled by the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105(a)"
No. 466 and 467 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 50 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,Civil, No. 01-01305
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Donna M. Annechino (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s order granting Kenneth M. Joire’s (Husband’s) petition to enforce a Property Settlement Agreement that was filed on May 15, 2001. After reviewing the cogent opinion of the distinguished trial judge, the Honorable Phyllis R. Streitel, we affirm.
"In this case, the parties entered into a Marital Property Settlement Agreement prior to the entry of the divorce decree in Chester County and did not incorporate or merge that agreement into the final divorce decree. Essentially, Wife claims that since the agreement was not incorporated and the pleadings did not include a count for equitable distribution, the Chester County court does not have the authority to enforce the Property Settlement Agreement and Husband’s only remedy is a separate civil action in equity.
We agree with Judge Streitel that the matter is controlled by the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105(a)"
Superior Court 3/26/08 -
PHILLIP DRUOT, AN INDIVIDUAL AND SHAREHOLDER OF STONEHILL RESTAURANT, INC., AND ALONA DRUOT, ET UX. v. JERRILYN COULTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS AN OFFICER OF STONEHILL RESTAURANT, INC., AND GEORGE VAN VUGT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN OFFICER OF STONEHILL RESTAURANT, INC., AND STONEHILL
RESTAURANT, INC.No. 250 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 49 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Order dated November 14, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County,No. 869-Civil-2003
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: OPINION PER CURIAM
This appeal has been taken from the order of November 14, 2007 granting the motion of appellees, defendants below, for summary judgment as to all counts of the complaint filed by appellants, plaintiffs below. The November 14th order did not dispose of any of the seven counterclaims filed by appellees in the trial court. Appellees have filed a motion to quash this appeal as interlocutory. We grant Appellees’ motion to quash.
RESTAURANT, INC.No. 250 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 49 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Order dated November 14, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County,No. 869-Civil-2003
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: OPINION PER CURIAM
This appeal has been taken from the order of November 14, 2007 granting the motion of appellees, defendants below, for summary judgment as to all counts of the complaint filed by appellants, plaintiffs below. The November 14th order did not dispose of any of the seven counterclaims filed by appellees in the trial court. Appellees have filed a motion to quash this appeal as interlocutory. We grant Appellees’ motion to quash.
Superior Court 3/26/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GLENN STEWART STITT, JR.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GLENN STEWART STITT, JR.
No. 30 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 48 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence ofDecember 1, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas ofBerks County, Criminal, No. CP-06-CR-0003102-2005
Before: KLEIN, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Glenn Stewart Stitt, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered against him in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County following his conviction of failing to register as sexual offender pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.2(a)(2)(i). After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, the official record and relevant law, we affirm.
No. 30 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 48 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence ofDecember 1, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas ofBerks County, Criminal, No. CP-06-CR-0003102-2005
Before: KLEIN, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Glenn Stewart Stitt, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered against him in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County following his conviction of failing to register as sexual offender pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.2(a)(2)(i). After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, the official record and relevant law, we affirm.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Superior Court 3/25/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL DAVID MISNER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL DAVID MISNER
No. 1164 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 47 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 10, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006338-2005
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of York County on April 10, 2006, following Appellant’s plea of guilty to three (3) separate charges of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and various offenses. Herein, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in treating his DUI offenses as first, second, and third offenses and, in accordance therewith, sentencing him under mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. We disagree; consequently, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Herein, Appellant raises the following question for review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF TITLE 75, CHAPTER 38 (DRIVING AFTER IMBIBING ALCOHOL) OF THE VEHICLE CODE WHEN IT ENTENCED THE APPELLANT TO MANDATORY SENTENCES UNDER 75 PA.C.S.A. § 3804(C)(1), (C)(2), AND (C)(3) FOR THE THREE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OFFENSES UNDER 75 PA.C.S.A. § 3802(C) WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE PROVISIONS OF 75 PA.C.S.A. § 3806?
Appellant argues that the court’s treatment of his DUI offenses as first, second, and third offenses and, thereby, sentencing him pursuant to the above provisions was violative of the dictates of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806. In support of this contention, Appellant asserts that “when the first DUI occurred on April 21, 2005, he had no prior convictions, when the second DUI occurred on May 21, 2005, he had no prior convictions, and when the final DUI occurred on November 19, 2005, he did not have any prior convictions.”
No. 1164 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 47 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 10, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006338-2005
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of York County on April 10, 2006, following Appellant’s plea of guilty to three (3) separate charges of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and various offenses. Herein, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in treating his DUI offenses as first, second, and third offenses and, in accordance therewith, sentencing him under mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. We disagree; consequently, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Herein, Appellant raises the following question for review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF TITLE 75, CHAPTER 38 (DRIVING AFTER IMBIBING ALCOHOL) OF THE VEHICLE CODE WHEN IT ENTENCED THE APPELLANT TO MANDATORY SENTENCES UNDER 75 PA.C.S.A. § 3804(C)(1), (C)(2), AND (C)(3) FOR THE THREE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OFFENSES UNDER 75 PA.C.S.A. § 3802(C) WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE PROVISIONS OF 75 PA.C.S.A. § 3806?
Appellant argues that the court’s treatment of his DUI offenses as first, second, and third offenses and, thereby, sentencing him pursuant to the above provisions was violative of the dictates of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806. In support of this contention, Appellant asserts that “when the first DUI occurred on April 21, 2005, he had no prior convictions, when the second DUI occurred on May 21, 2005, he had no prior convictions, and when the final DUI occurred on November 19, 2005, he did not have any prior convictions.”
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Superior Court - 3/20/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RUSSELL L. DIAMOND, JR.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RUSSELL L. DIAMOND, JR.
No. 1698 MDA 2008 2008 PA Super 45 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/20/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on August 30, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Criminal Division, at No(s). CP-38-CR-0001861-2005
Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 30, 2006, upon the conviction of Appellee Russell L. Diamond, Jr. (“Diamond”). We vacate and remand.
The Commonwealth raises two issues on appeal. In reverse order,they are:
1. Whether the trial court erred/abused its discretion by refusing to apply the mandatory five (5) year prison sentence required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712, since Appellee was convicted of using a firearm in the commission of his crimes?
2. Whether the trial court erred/abused its discretion by intentionally ignoring Appellee’s prior criminal record, ignoring the deadly weapon enhancement guidelines and sentencing Appellee below the mitigated range of the standard sentencing guidelines?
No. 1698 MDA 2008 2008 PA Super 45 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/20/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on August 30, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Criminal Division, at No(s). CP-38-CR-0001861-2005
Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 30, 2006, upon the conviction of Appellee Russell L. Diamond, Jr. (“Diamond”). We vacate and remand.
The Commonwealth raises two issues on appeal. In reverse order,they are:
1. Whether the trial court erred/abused its discretion by refusing to apply the mandatory five (5) year prison sentence required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712, since Appellee was convicted of using a firearm in the commission of his crimes?
2. Whether the trial court erred/abused its discretion by intentionally ignoring Appellee’s prior criminal record, ignoring the deadly weapon enhancement guidelines and sentencing Appellee below the mitigated range of the standard sentencing guidelines?
Superior Court 3/20/08 - DR. ROGER STEWART v. DR. GREGORY NICOSIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND DR. GREGORY NICOSIA PARTNER TRADING AS ADVANCED DIAGNOSTICS
DR. ROGER STEWART v. DR. GREGORY NICOSIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND DR. GREGORY NICOSIA PARTNER TRADING AS ADVANCED DIAGNOSTICS AND ADVANCE DIAGNOSTICS, INC. APPEAL OF: DR. GREGORY NICOSIA
No. 1779 WDA 2005, 1135 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 46 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/20/2008
Appeal from the Orders dated September 14 and 22, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil No. GD 01-013980 (Equity); GD 01-014628 (Law)
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
The consolidated appeal in this matter purports to lie from an order certified by the trial court as final under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) in a declaratory judgment action brought to determine whether the parties’ business dealings could be characterized as a partnership. We quash, as the order under consideration is not final and appealable.
No. 1779 WDA 2005, 1135 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 46 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/20/2008
Appeal from the Orders dated September 14 and 22, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil No. GD 01-013980 (Equity); GD 01-014628 (Law)
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
The consolidated appeal in this matter purports to lie from an order certified by the trial court as final under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) in a declaratory judgment action brought to determine whether the parties’ business dealings could be characterized as a partnership. We quash, as the order under consideration is not final and appealable.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Superior Court 3/19/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC HOLLEY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC HOLLEY
No. 3520 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 44 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/19/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 17, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County CRIMINAL Division at No: 0407-0928
Before: JOYCE,? PANELLA, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Eric Holley, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 17, 2005, by the Honorable Anthony J. DeFino, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
On appeal, Holley raises three issues for our review:
Whether the jury’s verdict, finding [Holley] guilty of Attempted Murder (FI) and Aggravated Assault (FI), was against the weight of the evidence?
Whether there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, finding Appellant guilty of Attempted Murder (FI) and Aggravated Assault (F2)?
Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial, where Commonwealth [sic] engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, by calling Appellant’s expert witness “arrogant and clueless,” and Appellant’s trial counsel “insane,” thereby creating a fixed bias in minds [sic] of jurors, which prejudiced [Holley]’s right to a fair trial?
No. 3520 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 44 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/19/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 17, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County CRIMINAL Division at No: 0407-0928
Before: JOYCE,? PANELLA, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Eric Holley, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 17, 2005, by the Honorable Anthony J. DeFino, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
On appeal, Holley raises three issues for our review:
Whether the jury’s verdict, finding [Holley] guilty of Attempted Murder (FI) and Aggravated Assault (FI), was against the weight of the evidence?
Whether there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, finding Appellant guilty of Attempted Murder (FI) and Aggravated Assault (F2)?
Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial, where Commonwealth [sic] engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, by calling Appellant’s expert witness “arrogant and clueless,” and Appellant’s trial counsel “insane,” thereby creating a fixed bias in minds [sic] of jurors, which prejudiced [Holley]’s right to a fair trial?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Superior Court 3/18/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON GRZEGORZEWSKI
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON GRZEGORZEWSKI
No. 1104 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 43 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002232-2006
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County on March 23, 2007, following Appellant’s conviction by a jury of unlawful use of a computer, identity theft, access device fraud, criminal attempt theft by deception, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, and receiving stolen property. Herein, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting testimony concerning his possession of a computer unrelated to the charges at issue. We affirm the judgment of sentence.
"We agree with the distinguished trial judge, Anthony Sarcione, that the challenged evidence shows intent, the absence of mistake or accident, and a common scheme or plan. Therefore, we find that the court did not err in permitting the evidence to be introduced at trial."
No. 1104 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 43 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002232-2006
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County on March 23, 2007, following Appellant’s conviction by a jury of unlawful use of a computer, identity theft, access device fraud, criminal attempt theft by deception, theft by unlawful taking or disposition, and receiving stolen property. Herein, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting testimony concerning his possession of a computer unrelated to the charges at issue. We affirm the judgment of sentence.
"We agree with the distinguished trial judge, Anthony Sarcione, that the challenged evidence shows intent, the absence of mistake or accident, and a common scheme or plan. Therefore, we find that the court did not err in permitting the evidence to be introduced at trial."
Friday, March 14, 2008
Superior Court 3/14/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GUY JAMAL GANT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GUY JAMAL GANT
No. 2159 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 41 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/14/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 30, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP#0504-0715 1/1
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, JJ. and McEWEN, PJE.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Concurring Statement by: McEWEN, P.J.E.
The Commonwealth appeals from a trial court order refusing to relitigate a motion to suppress evidence, which had been granted in a prior federal proceeding on a related charge, and dismissing the felony charges lodged against the defendant. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
No. 2159 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 41 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/14/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 30, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP#0504-0715 1/1
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, JJ. and McEWEN, PJE.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Concurring Statement by: McEWEN, P.J.E.
The Commonwealth appeals from a trial court order refusing to relitigate a motion to suppress evidence, which had been granted in a prior federal proceeding on a related charge, and dismissing the felony charges lodged against the defendant. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Superior Court 3/14/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALBERT J. MINCAVAGE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALBERT J. MINCAVAGE
No. 1012 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 42 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 30, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-54-CR-0000657-2006.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, JJ. AND MCEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, Albert Mincavage, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Upon review, we quash the appeal.
No. 1012 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 42 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 30, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-54-CR-0000657-2006.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, JJ. AND MCEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, Albert Mincavage, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Upon review, we quash the appeal.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Superior Court 3/13/2008 - LAWRENCE T. CHRISTIAN AND DEBRA E. CHRISTIAN v. JOHN YANOVIAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A CUMBERLAND MASONRY, INC.
LAWRENCE T. CHRISTIAN AND DEBRA E. CHRISTIAN v. JOHN YANOVIAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A CUMBERLAND MASONRY, INC.
No. 829 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 40 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/13/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered May 4, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Civil Division, at No. 2005-SU-01398-Y21.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, John Yanoviak, appeals from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, following a non-jury verdict in favor of Appellees, Lawrence and Debra Christian, in the amount of $22,200. On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining the proper measure of damages for the removal of trees from a private residence. We affirm.
No. 829 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 40 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/13/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered May 4, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Civil Division, at No. 2005-SU-01398-Y21.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, John Yanoviak, appeals from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, following a non-jury verdict in favor of Appellees, Lawrence and Debra Christian, in the amount of $22,200. On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining the proper measure of damages for the removal of trees from a private residence. We affirm.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Superior Court 3/12/2008 - A.J.B. v. M.P.B.
A.J.B. v. M.P.B.
No. 14 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 39 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/12/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No. 2004-198
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
A.J.B. (Father) appeals from the order dated December 18, 2006, and entered on December 19, 2006, wherein the trial court denied his petition to modify an existing custody order. We affirm.
In this appeal Father presented the following questions:
1. Did the [trial] court err in accepting the testimony of Ms. Reisman, a Ph.D. in Media Sciences, who had never seen either party, was not a psychologist and had never received any
training in that field?
2. Did the [trial] court abuse it’s [sic] discretion by blatantly disregarding findings of the independent psychologist and the father’s psychiatrist when no evidence was offered to contradict either expert?
3. Did the [trial] court abuse it’s [sic] discretion in finding that the father’s conduct violated his prior order by not providing up to the minute information on where the father was with the
child and finding that the father taking the child to local parks did not constitute public places as ordered by the court?
No. 14 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 39 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/12/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No. 2004-198
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
A.J.B. (Father) appeals from the order dated December 18, 2006, and entered on December 19, 2006, wherein the trial court denied his petition to modify an existing custody order. We affirm.
In this appeal Father presented the following questions:
1. Did the [trial] court err in accepting the testimony of Ms. Reisman, a Ph.D. in Media Sciences, who had never seen either party, was not a psychologist and had never received any
training in that field?
2. Did the [trial] court abuse it’s [sic] discretion by blatantly disregarding findings of the independent psychologist and the father’s psychiatrist when no evidence was offered to contradict either expert?
3. Did the [trial] court abuse it’s [sic] discretion in finding that the father’s conduct violated his prior order by not providing up to the minute information on where the father was with the
child and finding that the father taking the child to local parks did not constitute public places as ordered by the court?
Superior Court 3/12/08 - MICHELE FISHER AND LANE FISHER, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND MICHELE FISHER AND LANE FISHER, PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF RYAN
MICHELE FISHER AND LANE FISHER, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND MICHELE FISHER AND LANE FISHER, PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF RYAN FISHER, A MINOR v. CENTRAL CAB COMPANY AND TIMOTHY LEACH
No. 2049 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 37 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/12/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered September 10, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil, July Term, 2005, No. 2082
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellants, Michele and Lane Fisher, in their own right and Michele and Lane Fisher, parents and natural guardians of Ryan Fisher, a minor, appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Appellees, Central Cab Company and Timothy Leach. We affirm.
This case centers on the admission of a eyewitness's estimation of the speed of a vehicle. The Court finds the licensed driver to be permitted to opine as to the speed of the vehicle she observed, relying on Radogna v. Hester, 388 A.2d 1087, 1088 (Pa.Super. 1978).
No. 2049 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 37 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/12/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered September 10, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil, July Term, 2005, No. 2082
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellants, Michele and Lane Fisher, in their own right and Michele and Lane Fisher, parents and natural guardians of Ryan Fisher, a minor, appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Appellees, Central Cab Company and Timothy Leach. We affirm.
This case centers on the admission of a eyewitness's estimation of the speed of a vehicle. The Court finds the licensed driver to be permitted to opine as to the speed of the vehicle she observed, relying on Radogna v. Hester, 388 A.2d 1087, 1088 (Pa.Super. 1978).
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Superior Court 3/11/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE LEROY ANGEL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE LEROY ANGEL
No. 850 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 36 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/11/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 9, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-01-CR-0000598-2006.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, Wayne Angel, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of driving under the influence (DUI). He challenges the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence. After review, we affirm.
No. 850 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 36 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/11/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 9, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-01-CR-0000598-2006.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, Wayne Angel, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of driving under the influence (DUI). He challenges the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence. After review, we affirm.
Superior Court 3/11/08 - LINDA J. FAUST v. MICHAEL WALKER - APPEAL OF: DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE OF THE DAUPHIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LINDA J. FAUST v. MICHAEL WALKER APPEAL OF: DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE OF THE DAUPHIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
No. 1166 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 38 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/11/2008
Appeal from the Order of June 4, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Domestic Relations Division at No. 1606 DR 1995
Before: ORIE MELVIN, ALLEN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Appellant Domestic Relations Office of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas appeals from the trial court order which granted the motion of Appellee Michael Walker to strike the order of attachment of income in the amount of $5,000.00 and directed Appellant to prepare an order of attachment of income in the amount of $1,800.93. Appellant presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it granted Appellant’s request to limit the attachment of income in contradiction to the specific language of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4308.1. We affirm the trial court’s order.
No. 1166 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 38 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/11/2008
Appeal from the Order of June 4, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Domestic Relations Division at No. 1606 DR 1995
Before: ORIE MELVIN, ALLEN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Appellant Domestic Relations Office of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas appeals from the trial court order which granted the motion of Appellee Michael Walker to strike the order of attachment of income in the amount of $5,000.00 and directed Appellant to prepare an order of attachment of income in the amount of $1,800.93. Appellant presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it granted Appellant’s request to limit the attachment of income in contradiction to the specific language of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4308.1. We affirm the trial court’s order.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Superior Court - 3/10/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CARL NORTHRIP
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CARL NORTHRIP
No. 384 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 35 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/10/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated September 7, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal No. CP-52-CR-0000033-2005
Before: BENDER, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Carl Northrip, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas following his convictions of sexual crimes involving his minor daughter, S.F. We hold that the trial court erred when it prevented Appellant’s wife from testifying to S.F.’s motive to fabricate the allegations based on the Pennsylvania Rape Shield Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a), but that this error was harmless in light of Appellant’s telephone conversation with S.F. However, we hold that the trial court erred in treating Appellant’s conviction of New York Penal Law section 150.10, arson in the third degree, as a crime of violence in Pennsylvania under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
No. 384 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 35 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/10/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated September 7, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal No. CP-52-CR-0000033-2005
Before: BENDER, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Carl Northrip, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas following his convictions of sexual crimes involving his minor daughter, S.F. We hold that the trial court erred when it prevented Appellant’s wife from testifying to S.F.’s motive to fabricate the allegations based on the Pennsylvania Rape Shield Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a), but that this error was harmless in light of Appellant’s telephone conversation with S.F. However, we hold that the trial court erred in treating Appellant’s conviction of New York Penal Law section 150.10, arson in the third degree, as a crime of violence in Pennsylvania under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Superior Court 3/7/08 - APPEAL OF: LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEVAR RILEYAPPEAL OF: LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
No. 2186 WDA 2006 and 394 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 33 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 5, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair CountyCriminal No. 2005 CR 1741
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Appellant, Lexington National Insurance Corporation, appeals from an order entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas forfeiting $25,000 of a surety bond posted on behalf of Levar Andrew Riley. Because we find that the Commonwealth was not prejudiced by Riley’s breach of the bail conditions and accordingly that the forfeiture was not warranted, we reverse and remand.
No. 2186 WDA 2006 and 394 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 33 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 5, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair CountyCriminal No. 2005 CR 1741
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Appellant, Lexington National Insurance Corporation, appeals from an order entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas forfeiting $25,000 of a surety bond posted on behalf of Levar Andrew Riley. Because we find that the Commonwealth was not prejudiced by Riley’s breach of the bail conditions and accordingly that the forfeiture was not warranted, we reverse and remand.
Superior Court 3/7/08 IN RE: C.T. and G.T.F., Both Minors
IN RE: C.T. and G.T.F., Both MinorsAPPEAL OF: C.T., Biological Father,
No. 1150 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 31 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order of April 4, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Family Court at No. February Term, 2007, Nos. 90038 and 90040
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Concurring Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Appellant, C.T. (Father), appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children. After careful review, we affirm.
No. 1150 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 31 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order of April 4, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Family Court at No. February Term, 2007, Nos. 90038 and 90040
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Concurring Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Appellant, C.T. (Father), appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children. After careful review, we affirm.
Superior Court 3/7/2008 - MAX C. MALONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA E. MALONEY v. VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES, INC., D/B/
MAX C. MALONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA E. MALONEY v. VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES, INC., D/B/A THE MEDICAL CENTER, BEAVER, HERITAGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., BEAVER INTERNAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATION, TRI-STATE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., BRIGHTON RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., MAURICE PRENDERGRAST, M.D., AND RICHARD E. BRENNAN, M.D.
No. 346 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 32 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 18, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver CountyCivil No. GD 10369-2004
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
This is an appeal from an order entering summary judgment in favor of Appellees/defendants below in an action based on claims of medical negligence. Finding error in the trial court’s nullification of the reservation of rights clause in a tortfeasors release, we vacate the judgment to the extent of the reservation and remand.
No. 346 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 32 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 18, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver CountyCivil No. GD 10369-2004
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
This is an appeal from an order entering summary judgment in favor of Appellees/defendants below in an action based on claims of medical negligence. Finding error in the trial court’s nullification of the reservation of rights clause in a tortfeasors release, we vacate the judgment to the extent of the reservation and remand.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Superior Court - 3/5/2008 - SHEILA T. KREBS (NKA: SHEILA T. JOHNSON), Appellant at 1637 v. WILLIAM A. KREBS, III, Appellant at 1638
SHEILA T. KREBS (NKA: SHEILA T. JOHNSON), Appellant at 1637 v. WILLIAM A. KREBS, III, Appellant at 1638
No. 1637 & 1638 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 29 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 29, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations, No. 1279N1997 PACSES No. 598001611
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Sheila T. Krebs n/k/a Sheila T. Johnson (“Mother”) and Appellee/Cross-Appellant, William A Krebs, III (“Father”), appeal from the order entered in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Mother’s 2006 petition to modify the parties’ existing child support order, upon finding that Father knowingly misrepresented substantial increases in his income from 2001 to 2005, applied Father’s support arrearages retroactively to 2004, and set a payment schedule for arrears of $590.00 per month.
"Mother asks us to determine whether the court erred in declining to order Father’s support arrearages retroactive to 2001 when Father began to conceal increases in his actual income. Father asks us to determine whether the evidence of record supported the court’s decision to impose retroactive child support payments beyond the date Mother filed the modification petition. We hold the trial court properly found compelling reasons warranted child support arrearages retroactive to a date prior to Mother’s support modification petition but erred in limiting that retroactivity only to May 21, 2004 rather than extending it to January 1, 2001, when Father first failed to report the substantial increases in his income."
No. 1637 & 1638 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 29 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 29, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations, No. 1279N1997 PACSES No. 598001611
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Sheila T. Krebs n/k/a Sheila T. Johnson (“Mother”) and Appellee/Cross-Appellant, William A Krebs, III (“Father”), appeal from the order entered in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Mother’s 2006 petition to modify the parties’ existing child support order, upon finding that Father knowingly misrepresented substantial increases in his income from 2001 to 2005, applied Father’s support arrearages retroactively to 2004, and set a payment schedule for arrears of $590.00 per month.
"Mother asks us to determine whether the court erred in declining to order Father’s support arrearages retroactive to 2001 when Father began to conceal increases in his actual income. Father asks us to determine whether the evidence of record supported the court’s decision to impose retroactive child support payments beyond the date Mother filed the modification petition. We hold the trial court properly found compelling reasons warranted child support arrearages retroactive to a date prior to Mother’s support modification petition but erred in limiting that retroactivity only to May 21, 2004 rather than extending it to January 1, 2001, when Father first failed to report the substantial increases in his income."
Superior Court - 3/5/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE PHILLIPS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE PHILLIPS
No. 2249 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 30 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 12, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, August Term, 2005, No. 57 1/2
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Andre Phillips, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for robbery, possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”), and criminal conspiracy. We affirm Appellant’s convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
No. 2249 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 30 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 12, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, August Term, 2005, No. 57 1/2
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Andre Phillips, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for robbery, possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”), and criminal conspiracy. We affirm Appellant’s convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Superior Court 3/3/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN PAUL BAKER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN PAUL BAKER
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 27 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 24, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-02-CR-0002577 of 2006.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the Order granting suppression of all evidence derived from the search warrant due to the Commonwealth’s decision not to produce the confidential informant whose information was related in the affidavit of probable cause. After careful review, we reverse.
" If we were to conclude that the instant evidence was sufficient to satisfy the threshold burden articulated in Bonasorte, every suspect subject to a search warrant under analogous circumstances would be able to assert that a controlled buy with a CI never occurred and thereby request production of the CI knowing the Commonwealth’s reluctance to expose its confidential informants, thereby hoping that the Commonwealth either withdraws the charge or suffers suppression so as to protect its witness from possible harm.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, there is an important “public interest in protecting the free flow of information” in furtherance of effective law enforcement. See Bonasorte, supra, 486 A.2d at 1372 (discussing the seminal balancing test of Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957)). Without any good faith basis for believing that the informant’s identity would have been helpful to the defense, there are no grounds for production of the CI. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Appellee had met his burden that the affiant included intentional misstatements in the affidavit of probable cause. "
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 27 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 24, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-02-CR-0002577 of 2006.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the Order granting suppression of all evidence derived from the search warrant due to the Commonwealth’s decision not to produce the confidential informant whose information was related in the affidavit of probable cause. After careful review, we reverse.
" If we were to conclude that the instant evidence was sufficient to satisfy the threshold burden articulated in Bonasorte, every suspect subject to a search warrant under analogous circumstances would be able to assert that a controlled buy with a CI never occurred and thereby request production of the CI knowing the Commonwealth’s reluctance to expose its confidential informants, thereby hoping that the Commonwealth either withdraws the charge or suffers suppression so as to protect its witness from possible harm.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, there is an important “public interest in protecting the free flow of information” in furtherance of effective law enforcement. See Bonasorte, supra, 486 A.2d at 1372 (discussing the seminal balancing test of Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957)). Without any good faith basis for believing that the informant’s identity would have been helpful to the defense, there are no grounds for production of the CI. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Appellee had met his burden that the affiant included intentional misstatements in the affidavit of probable cause. "
Superior Court 3/3/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID JOHNSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID JOHNSON
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 26 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 14, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP#7702-1822 1/1
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing Appellant’s fifth petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 26 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 14, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP#7702-1822 1/1
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing Appellant’s fifth petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
Superior Court 3/3/08 - DAVID W. STRAUSSER v. PRAMCO, III & MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST CO., T/D/B/A M & T BANK
DAVID W. STRAUSSER v. PRAMCO, III & MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST CO., T/D/B/A M & T BANK
No. 954 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 28 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No. S-1774-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., HUDOCK AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Appellant appeals from the order sustaining the preliminary objections of appellee Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (“M&T”), and dismissing appellant’s amended complaint. By a separate prior order dated October 23, 2006, the trial court had earlier also sustained the preliminary objections of PRAMCO III, LLC (“PRAMCO”) and dismissed the complaint as to that entity. On appeal, appellant raises several issues of trial court error as to both appellees. Finding no error, we affirm.
No. 954 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 28 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No. S-1774-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., HUDOCK AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Appellant appeals from the order sustaining the preliminary objections of appellee Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (“M&T”), and dismissing appellant’s amended complaint. By a separate prior order dated October 23, 2006, the trial court had earlier also sustained the preliminary objections of PRAMCO III, LLC (“PRAMCO”) and dismissed the complaint as to that entity. On appeal, appellant raises several issues of trial court error as to both appellees. Finding no error, we affirm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
