N.H.M. v. P.O.T
No. 1545 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 90 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil at No(s): 4913 CV 2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
N.H.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the August 23, 2007 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ minor children, G.M.T., a male, and H.M.T., a female, (collectively “the children”) to P.O.T. (“Father”). We affirm.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Superior Court 4/30/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FRANKLIN LUTHER JACKSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FRANKLIN LUTHER JACKSON
No. 1222 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 89 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 30, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005374-2006
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County following Appellant’s conviction by a jury on the charge of third degree murder. Appellant contends the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose during Appellant’s trial that the Commonwealth was going to dismiss all charges against co-conspirator Shannon Stuart in exchange for Stuart’s testimony against Appellant. We affirm.
No. 1222 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 89 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 30, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005374-2006
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County following Appellant’s conviction by a jury on the charge of third degree murder. Appellant contends the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose during Appellant’s trial that the Commonwealth was going to dismiss all charges against co-conspirator Shannon Stuart in exchange for Stuart’s testimony against Appellant. We affirm.
Superior Court 4/30/08 - CURT STIVASON v. TIMBERLINE POST AND BEAM STRUCTURES COMPANY
CURT STIVASON v. TIMBERLINE POST AND BEAM STRUCTURES COMPANY
No. 966 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 88 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 25, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, Civil Division, at No(s). 2006-1861 Civil
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA, and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Curt Stivason (“Stivason”), appeals from the trial court’s order dated April 25, 2007, sustaining the preliminary objections asserting improper venue filed by Appellee, Timberline Post and Beam Structures Company (“Timberline”), and dismissing his complaint. We affirm.
No. 966 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 88 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 25, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, Civil Division, at No(s). 2006-1861 Civil
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA, and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Curt Stivason (“Stivason”), appeals from the trial court’s order dated April 25, 2007, sustaining the preliminary objections asserting improper venue filed by Appellee, Timberline Post and Beam Structures Company (“Timberline”), and dismissing his complaint. We affirm.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Superior Court 4/29/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HAROLD F. FORD
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HAROLD F. FORD
No. 1653 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 86 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/29/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 29, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of CHESTER CountyCRIMINAL at No(s): CP-15-CR-0003457-2002
Before: MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, and PANELLA, JJ
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Harold F. Ford, appeals from the order entered on May 29, 2007, by the Honorable James P. MacElree II, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, which denied his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). After careful review, we affirm.
No. 1653 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 86 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/29/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 29, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of CHESTER CountyCRIMINAL at No(s): CP-15-CR-0003457-2002
Before: MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, and PANELLA, JJ
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Harold F. Ford, appeals from the order entered on May 29, 2007, by the Honorable James P. MacElree II, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, which denied his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). After careful review, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/29/08 -COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PATRICK H. OTTERSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PATRICK H. OTTERSON
No. 1968 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 85 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/29/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 20, 2006,In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,Criminal Division at No. CP-46-CR-0009849-2004.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant Patrick H. Otterson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 20, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, following his conviction for possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”) marijuana, violation of the Uniform Firearms Act, and related offenses. This case is before us once again on remand from our Supreme Court. We affirm.
No. 1968 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 85 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/29/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 20, 2006,In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,Criminal Division at No. CP-46-CR-0009849-2004.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant Patrick H. Otterson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 20, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, following his conviction for possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”) marijuana, violation of the Uniform Firearms Act, and related offenses. This case is before us once again on remand from our Supreme Court. We affirm.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Superior Court 4/28/08 - FRANCIS A. SOPKO AND ALLISON LAMB v. JOHN R. MURRAY
FRANCIS A. SOPKO AND ALLISON LAMB v. JOHN R. MURRAY
No. 718 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 87 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/29/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered April 30, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Civil Division, at No. GD-03-024613.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, John Murray, appeals from the judgment entered following a jury verdict and the trial court’s award of delay damages to Appellees, Francis Sopko and Allison Lamb. Upon review, we affirm.
No. 718 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 87 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/29/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered April 30, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Civil Division, at No. GD-03-024613.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, John Murray, appeals from the judgment entered following a jury verdict and the trial court’s award of delay damages to Appellees, Francis Sopko and Allison Lamb. Upon review, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/28/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICOLAS BULLOCK
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICOLAS BULLOCK
No. 3363 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 83 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/28/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 28, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP#0407-0079 1/1
Before: STEVENS, DONOHUE, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on October 28, 2005, at which time Appellant Nicholas Bullock was sentenced to an aggregate term of twenty-six (26) years to fifty-two (52) years in prison. Upon a review of the record, we affirm.
No. 3363 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 83 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/28/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 28, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP#0407-0079 1/1
Before: STEVENS, DONOHUE, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on October 28, 2005, at which time Appellant Nicholas Bullock was sentenced to an aggregate term of twenty-six (26) years to fifty-two (52) years in prison. Upon a review of the record, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/28/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JEFFREY ALAN EDE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JEFFREY ALAN EDE
No. 2543 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 84 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/28/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated August 7, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal No. CP-39-CR-0001507-2006
Before: BENDER, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Appellant, Jeffrey Alan Ede, filed this pro se appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to two counts of recklessly endangering another person (REAP), one count of fleeing or attempting to elude police (Fleeing), and a summary offense of driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked. We hold 75 Pa.C.S. § 6503 mandates that a sentence of imprisonment for a second-time conviction of Fleeing may not exceed a term of six months. We further hold that the crimes of Fleeing and REAP do not merge for sentencing purposes. Finally, we deny Appellant’s claim regarding credit for time served. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.
No. 2543 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 84 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/28/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated August 7, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal No. CP-39-CR-0001507-2006
Before: BENDER, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Appellant, Jeffrey Alan Ede, filed this pro se appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to two counts of recklessly endangering another person (REAP), one count of fleeing or attempting to elude police (Fleeing), and a summary offense of driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked. We hold 75 Pa.C.S. § 6503 mandates that a sentence of imprisonment for a second-time conviction of Fleeing may not exceed a term of six months. We further hold that the crimes of Fleeing and REAP do not merge for sentencing purposes. Finally, we deny Appellant’s claim regarding credit for time served. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Superior Court 4/25/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEVEN HUTCHINSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEVEN HUTCHINSON
No. 1146 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 82 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The instant action is an appeal from an Order of Court entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on June 15, 2007, at which time the trial court granted the renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of Appellee Robert Steven Hutchinson (hereinafter “Appellee”) after his jury trial conviction. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of sentence.
No. 1146 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 82 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The instant action is an appeal from an Order of Court entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on June 15, 2007, at which time the trial court granted the renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of Appellee Robert Steven Hutchinson (hereinafter “Appellee”) after his jury trial conviction. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of sentence.
Superior Court 4/25/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOEL D. BAILEY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOEL D. BAILEY
No. 1568 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 81 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Joel D. Bailey (Appellant) appeals from the August 7, 2007, judgment of sentence of 30 days to 6 months imprisonment, fines, and costs imposed after he was convicted of driving while imbibing and driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol.
No. 1568 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 81 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Joel D. Bailey (Appellant) appeals from the August 7, 2007, judgment of sentence of 30 days to 6 months imprisonment, fines, and costs imposed after he was convicted of driving while imbibing and driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol.
Superior Court 4/25/08 - IN THE MATTER OF T.D.
IN THE MATTER OF T.D.APPEAL OF: J.D., FATHERAPPEAL OF: C.M., MOTHER
No. 1535 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 80 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Order of July 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington CountyOrphans’ Court at No. 63-07-0045
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
In these two consecutively listed appeals, Appellant, J.D. (Father), and Appellant, C.M. (Mother), collectively referred to as “Parents,” appeal from the order entered on July 25, 2007, that involuntarily terminated their respective parental rights to their minor son, T.D. As Parents raise parallel arguments, we address both appeals together, and after careful review, we affirm.
No. 1535 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 80 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Order of July 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington CountyOrphans’ Court at No. 63-07-0045
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
In these two consecutively listed appeals, Appellant, J.D. (Father), and Appellant, C.M. (Mother), collectively referred to as “Parents,” appeal from the order entered on July 25, 2007, that involuntarily terminated their respective parental rights to their minor son, T.D. As Parents raise parallel arguments, we address both appeals together, and after careful review, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/25/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEVEN HUTCHINSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEVEN HUTCHINSON
No. 1146 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 82 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The instant action is an appeal from an Order of Court entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on June 15, 2007, at which time the trial court granted the renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of Appellee Robert Steven Hutchinson (hereinafter “Appellee”) after his jury trial conviction. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of sentence.
No. 1146 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 82 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The instant action is an appeal from an Order of Court entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on June 15, 2007, at which time the trial court granted the renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of Appellee Robert Steven Hutchinson (hereinafter “Appellee”) after his jury trial conviction. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of sentence.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Superior Court 4/23/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERICA MICHALIGA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERICA MICHALIGA
No. 1351 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 78 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/23/2008
Appeal from the order entered July 2, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal at No. CP-40-MD-0000717-2007.
Before: GANTMAN, ALLEN and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the order of the trial court directing it to prosecute a private criminal complaint that the district attorney’s office had previously disapproved. We reverse.
“Additionally, there was a collective belief that [***] was attempting to use the Office of the District Attorney in an effort to redress grievances for which there are adequate civil remedies.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7. It was further concluded that the case lacked prosecutorial merit due to the potential difficulty in sustaining a conviction. Assistant District Attorney Doherty concurred with this assessment, and, therefore, ordered that the charges against [***] be withdrawn.....
......the court includes the following exchange:
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, we
have to object. The standard [of] review in this matter is
abuse of discretion.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Well, they have to
show there’s been bad faith [or] [un]constitutionality.
THE COURT: I think it’s there.
Thank you.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: The Superior Court
case, Your Honor, basically says that when a determination
has been made by the District Attorney’s Office that the
victim has adequate remedies available to them, that’s
more than a sufficient policy reason to refuse to prosecute a
private criminal complaint.
THE COURT: I understand. The Commonwealth will
proceed with the prosecution. It’s ridiculous what happened
in this case. Every time [Romanoski] did something wrong,
you prosecuted him, he moved sideways, you prosecuted him.
He got defrauded, this lady actually defrauded
him. It was improper what she did. She actually sent false
information back to the insurance company to get this check
in her name when it shouldn’t have been done.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, they
had a contract, and that means she breached the contract.
THE COURT: She violated the law.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: We’d have to show...
No. 1351 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 78 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/23/2008
Appeal from the order entered July 2, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal at No. CP-40-MD-0000717-2007.
Before: GANTMAN, ALLEN and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the order of the trial court directing it to prosecute a private criminal complaint that the district attorney’s office had previously disapproved. We reverse.
“Additionally, there was a collective belief that [***] was attempting to use the Office of the District Attorney in an effort to redress grievances for which there are adequate civil remedies.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7. It was further concluded that the case lacked prosecutorial merit due to the potential difficulty in sustaining a conviction. Assistant District Attorney Doherty concurred with this assessment, and, therefore, ordered that the charges against [***] be withdrawn.....
......the court includes the following exchange:
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, we
have to object. The standard [of] review in this matter is
abuse of discretion.
THE COURT: I think you abused your discretion.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Well, they have to
show there’s been bad faith [or] [un]constitutionality.
THE COURT: I think it’s there.
Thank you.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: The Superior Court
case, Your Honor, basically says that when a determination
has been made by the District Attorney’s Office that the
victim has adequate remedies available to them, that’s
more than a sufficient policy reason to refuse to prosecute a
private criminal complaint.
THE COURT: I understand. The Commonwealth will
proceed with the prosecution. It’s ridiculous what happened
in this case. Every time [Romanoski] did something wrong,
you prosecuted him, he moved sideways, you prosecuted him.
He got defrauded, this lady actually defrauded
him. It was improper what she did. She actually sent false
information back to the insurance company to get this check
in her name when it shouldn’t have been done.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, they
had a contract, and that means she breached the contract.
THE COURT: She violated the law.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: We’d have to show...
Monday, April 21, 2008
Superior Court 4/21/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VICTOR McKEEVER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VICTOR McKEEVER
No. 1631 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 77 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order July 31, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division at No. 2923 of 1994
Before: PANELLA, DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Victor McKeever appeals the order entered on July 31, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County that dismissed his petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, we affirm.
No. 1631 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 77 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order July 31, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division at No. 2923 of 1994
Before: PANELLA, DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Victor McKeever appeals the order entered on July 31, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County that dismissed his petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/21/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. HIRAM VARGAS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. HIRAM VARGAS
No. 1107 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 75 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order entered March 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0400271-2006
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing all charges against Appellee, Hiram Vargas. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
No. 1107 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 75 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order entered March 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0400271-2006
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing all charges against Appellee, Hiram Vargas. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Superior Court 4/18/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JOHN FLETCHER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JOHN FLETCHER
No. 311 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 74 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 8, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Criminal Division at No. 1597 of 2005
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following Appellant’s guilty pleas to charges related to the sexual abuse of his minor niece, including two counts of indecent assault. Appellant was sentenced and designated a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) for purposes of Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law. Appellant presents argument on only one issue for our review: whether the SVP designation was supported where there was insufficient evidence that Appellant engaged in predatory behavior in the assaults on his niece. When this Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a determination of SVP status, “we will reverse the trial court only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to enable the trial court to determine that each element required by the statute has been satisfied.” Commonwealth v. Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480, 484 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). We affirm.
No. 311 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 74 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 8, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Criminal Division at No. 1597 of 2005
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following Appellant’s guilty pleas to charges related to the sexual abuse of his minor niece, including two counts of indecent assault. Appellant was sentenced and designated a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) for purposes of Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law. Appellant presents argument on only one issue for our review: whether the SVP designation was supported where there was insufficient evidence that Appellant engaged in predatory behavior in the assaults on his niece. When this Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a determination of SVP status, “we will reverse the trial court only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to enable the trial court to determine that each element required by the statute has been satisfied.” Commonwealth v. Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480, 484 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). We affirm.
Superior Court 4/18/08 - RECREATION LAND CORPORATION AND TREASURE LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. M. IMOGENE HARTZFELD AND THOMAS HARTZFELD
RECREATION LAND CORPORATION AND TREASURE LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. M. IMOGENE HARTZFELD AND THOMAS HARTZFELD
No. 881 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 76 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 17, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Civil Division, at No(s). 92-16-EQU
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA, and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, M. Imogene Hartzfeld and Thomas Hartzfeld, appeal from the order entered on April 17, 2007, directing them to remove a dog pen from a parcel of property. We affirm.
No. 881 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 76 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 17, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Civil Division, at No(s). 92-16-EQU
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA, and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, M. Imogene Hartzfeld and Thomas Hartzfeld, appeal from the order entered on April 17, 2007, directing them to remove a dog pen from a parcel of property. We affirm.
Superior Court 4/18/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEKEYIA GRAHAME
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEKEYIA GRAHAME
No. 3288 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 73 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of November 9, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0511061-2006
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Lekeyia Grahame appeals from the judgment of sentence entered against her following a bench trial on September 29, 2006. Grahame was found guilty of simple possession and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to 4 years’ probation. Grahame argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress because there was no valid consent to search her pocketbook, and no exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
No. 3288 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 73 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of November 9, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0511061-2006
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Lekeyia Grahame appeals from the judgment of sentence entered against her following a bench trial on September 29, 2006. Grahame was found guilty of simple possession and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to 4 years’ probation. Grahame argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress because there was no valid consent to search her pocketbook, and no exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/18/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JUSTIN WEIGLE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JUSTIN WEIGLE
No. 119 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 69 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered December 19, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. 0606-0421 1/1.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from the Order granting a motion to quash robbery charges that were included in informations filed following a preliminary hearing wherein the robbery charges were previously discharged against Appellee, Justin Weigle, for failure to establish a prima facie case. The question presented by this appeal concerns whether or not robbery is a separate non-cognate offense to the crimes held over at the preliminary hearing. We find that it is and, therefore, affirm.
No. 119 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 69 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered December 19, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. 0606-0421 1/1.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from the Order granting a motion to quash robbery charges that were included in informations filed following a preliminary hearing wherein the robbery charges were previously discharged against Appellee, Justin Weigle, for failure to establish a prima facie case. The question presented by this appeal concerns whether or not robbery is a separate non-cognate offense to the crimes held over at the preliminary hearing. We find that it is and, therefore, affirm.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Superior Court 4/17/08 - IN RE: ESTATE OF AMELIA J. PIET
IN RE: ESTATE OF AMELIA J. PIET APPEAL OF: MARY PIET BLACK IN RE: ESTATE OF AMELIA J. PIET, DECEASED APPEAL OF: ANN L. BALL and EDWARD J. PIET
No. 123, 201 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 72 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/17/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, No(s): 02-04-2759
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Dissenting Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Mary Piet Black appeals from the portion of the December 12, 2006, Order denying her exceptions to the orphans’ court’s conclusions of law and findings of fact. Co-executors Ann L. Ball and Edward J. Piet cross-appeal from that portion of the Order denying their exceptions to the court’s conclusions and findings.
No. 123, 201 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 72 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/17/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, No(s): 02-04-2759
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Dissenting Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Mary Piet Black appeals from the portion of the December 12, 2006, Order denying her exceptions to the orphans’ court’s conclusions of law and findings of fact. Co-executors Ann L. Ball and Edward J. Piet cross-appeal from that portion of the Order denying their exceptions to the court’s conclusions and findings.
Superior Court 4/17/08 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWARD NUNN
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWARD NUNN
No. 1133 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 71 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/17/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 12, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-35-CR-0001711-2006, CP-35-CR-0001712-2006, CP-35-CR-0001713-2006 and CP-35-CR-0001714-2006
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Edward Nunn, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 12, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, after a jury found him guilty of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, simple assault, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, possessing instruments of crime, and disorderly conduct. We affirm.
No. 1133 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 71 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/17/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 12, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-35-CR-0001711-2006, CP-35-CR-0001712-2006, CP-35-CR-0001713-2006 and CP-35-CR-0001714-2006
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Edward Nunn, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 12, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, after a jury found him guilty of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, simple assault, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, possessing instruments of crime, and disorderly conduct. We affirm.
Superior Court 4/16/08 - RICHARD A. DANZ v. CINDY L. DANZ
RICHARD A. DANZ v. CINDY L. DANZ
No. 1506 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 70 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/16/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Civil Division, No. 2007-97
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Cindy L. Danz appeals the July 18, 2007, Order denying her Motion to Vacate or Open a Decree of Divorce.
On October 8, 2007, the trial court issued an Opinion wherein it concluded wife had waived her challenge to improper venue by failing to file preliminary objections. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1920.1(b), Definitions. Conformity to Civil Action, which states: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the procedure in [a divorce] action shall be in accordance with the rules relating to a civil action.” The trial court also relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1006(e), Venue. Change of Venue, which provides in pertinent part: “Improper venue shall be raised by preliminary objection and if not so raised shall be waived.”
Our standard of review over an order denying a motion to open or vacate a divorce decree requires us to determine whether an abuse of discretion has been committed. Egan, supra at 407, quoting Foley v. Foley, 572 A.2d 6, 9 (Pa.Super. 1990) (additional citation omitted). A motion requesting that a divorce decree be opened or vacated lies when the motion alleges the decree suffers from a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record, was procured by either intrinsic or extrinsic fraud, should be voided in light of newly discovered evidence, or was entered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3332, Opening or vacating decrees.
No. 1506 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 70 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/16/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Civil Division, No. 2007-97
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Cindy L. Danz appeals the July 18, 2007, Order denying her Motion to Vacate or Open a Decree of Divorce.
On October 8, 2007, the trial court issued an Opinion wherein it concluded wife had waived her challenge to improper venue by failing to file preliminary objections. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1920.1(b), Definitions. Conformity to Civil Action, which states: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the procedure in [a divorce] action shall be in accordance with the rules relating to a civil action.” The trial court also relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1006(e), Venue. Change of Venue, which provides in pertinent part: “Improper venue shall be raised by preliminary objection and if not so raised shall be waived.”
Our standard of review over an order denying a motion to open or vacate a divorce decree requires us to determine whether an abuse of discretion has been committed. Egan, supra at 407, quoting Foley v. Foley, 572 A.2d 6, 9 (Pa.Super. 1990) (additional citation omitted). A motion requesting that a divorce decree be opened or vacated lies when the motion alleges the decree suffers from a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record, was procured by either intrinsic or extrinsic fraud, should be voided in light of newly discovered evidence, or was entered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3332, Opening or vacating decrees.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Superior Court 4/14/08 - YURIY KOPYTIN AND YELENA KOPYTIN v. WILLIAM ASCHINGER AND ANNE ASCHINGER
YURIY KOPYTIN AND YELENA KOPYTIN v. WILLIAM ASCHINGER AND ANNE ASCHINGER
No. 98 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 68 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered January 9, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil No. 2003-03731
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for Appellant in the amount of $2,540.92 representing unreimbursed medical expenses in an action based on claims of personal injury incurred in an automobile accident. Finding the award inadequate, and the trial court’s construction of Pa.R.C.P. 1311.1 incorrect, we vacate and remand.
Appellant has presented six issues, first challenging the amount of the verdict as inconsistent with the evidence, and then assigning error to the trial court’s refusal to allow publication to the jury of his expert reports, its adverse ruling on Appellant’s objection to Appellee’s adverse inference argument during closing statements, its admission of Appellee’s surveillance tape, and its allowing Appellee to cross-examine Appellant’s medical expert on prior testimony and documents relating to other patients.
No. 98 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 68 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered January 9, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil No. 2003-03731
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for Appellant in the amount of $2,540.92 representing unreimbursed medical expenses in an action based on claims of personal injury incurred in an automobile accident. Finding the award inadequate, and the trial court’s construction of Pa.R.C.P. 1311.1 incorrect, we vacate and remand.
Appellant has presented six issues, first challenging the amount of the verdict as inconsistent with the evidence, and then assigning error to the trial court’s refusal to allow publication to the jury of his expert reports, its adverse ruling on Appellant’s objection to Appellee’s adverse inference argument during closing statements, its admission of Appellee’s surveillance tape, and its allowing Appellee to cross-examine Appellant’s medical expert on prior testimony and documents relating to other patients.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Superior Court 4/3/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JULES JETTE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JULES JETTE
No. 2834 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 59 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA order dated September 28, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal No. 0101-1188 1/1
Before: HUDOCK, J., MCEWEN, P.J.E., and FITZGERALD, J.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Jules Jette, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Appellant and his counsel have also filed petitions to remand for appointment of new counsel. We hold that PCRA counsel may not justify his failure to argue an issue by claiming that the petitioner failed to develop it properly in his pro se PCRA petition. We further hold that, in providing legal analysis to this Court in a petition for remand, counsel is bound by the same requirements to provide supporting citations as he would be in his appellate brief. Accordingly, we remand for counsel to provide a more complete analysis to this Court for review.
No. 2834 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 59 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA order dated September 28, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal No. 0101-1188 1/1
Before: HUDOCK, J., MCEWEN, P.J.E., and FITZGERALD, J.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Jules Jette, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Appellant and his counsel have also filed petitions to remand for appointment of new counsel. We hold that PCRA counsel may not justify his failure to argue an issue by claiming that the petitioner failed to develop it properly in his pro se PCRA petition. We further hold that, in providing legal analysis to this Court in a petition for remand, counsel is bound by the same requirements to provide supporting citations as he would be in his appellate brief. Accordingly, we remand for counsel to provide a more complete analysis to this Court for review.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Superior Court 4/2/08 - MICHAEL S. HUTCHISON, JR., by MARY J. HUTCHISON, Parent and Natural Guardian v. FATHER FRANCIS LUDDY, MICHAEL E. SERVINSKY, Ex
MICHAEL S. HUTCHISON, JR., by MARY J. HUTCHISON, Parent and Natural Guardian v. FATHER FRANCIS LUDDY, MICHAEL E. SERVINSKY, Executor of the Estate of JAMES J. HOGAN, DECEASED, and DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN
No. 2096 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 58 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/2/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of BLAIR County CIVIL at No(s): 1175 C.P., 1987
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, and PANELLA, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Michael S. Hutchison, Jr., by Mary J. Hutchison, parent and natural guardian, appeals from the order entered on October 4, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County.
In this latest controversy, we consider whether the entry of judgment non obstante verdicto (“JNOV”) by this Court on two previous occasions, both of which were subsequently vacated by our Supreme Court, deprives Michael of post-judgment interest on a claim for punitive damages, for the period of time that the JNOV was in effect, when the damage award was ultimately affirmed. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the erroneous entry of JNOV does not preclude Michael from collecting postjudgment interest dating back to the date of the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we reverse.
No. 2096 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 58 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/2/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of BLAIR County CIVIL at No(s): 1175 C.P., 1987
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, and PANELLA, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Michael S. Hutchison, Jr., by Mary J. Hutchison, parent and natural guardian, appeals from the order entered on October 4, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County.
In this latest controversy, we consider whether the entry of judgment non obstante verdicto (“JNOV”) by this Court on two previous occasions, both of which were subsequently vacated by our Supreme Court, deprives Michael of post-judgment interest on a claim for punitive damages, for the period of time that the JNOV was in effect, when the damage award was ultimately affirmed. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the erroneous entry of JNOV does not preclude Michael from collecting postjudgment interest dating back to the date of the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we reverse.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Superior Court 4/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN LEE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN LEE
No. 720 and 890 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 56 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence enteredMarch 19, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas ofAllegheny County, Criminal, at No. CC 200610594.
Before: HUDOCK, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
These consolidated appeals are from the judgment of sentence and restitution Order entered against John Lee (“Lee”) following his conviction of cruelty to animals. The trial court sentenced Lee to four years of probation and restitution in the amount of $3,156.00. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing. We affirm the trial court’s Order of restitution.
No. 720 and 890 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 56 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence enteredMarch 19, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas ofAllegheny County, Criminal, at No. CC 200610594.
Before: HUDOCK, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
These consolidated appeals are from the judgment of sentence and restitution Order entered against John Lee (“Lee”) following his conviction of cruelty to animals. The trial court sentenced Lee to four years of probation and restitution in the amount of $3,156.00. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing. We affirm the trial court’s Order of restitution.
Superior Court 4/1/08 - IN RE: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J.
IN RE: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J.APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIESAPPEAL OF: Z.S.W.
No. 590 and 571 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 55 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on March 2, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Orphans' Court Division, No. CYS 131 of 2006
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
In these consolidated appeals, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) and Z.S.W., through her the guardian ad litem, appeal from the Order of the trial court denying the Petition to involuntarily terminate L.C.’s parental rights to his daughter Z.S.W. (D.O.B. 7/29/04). We reverse and remand.
No. 590 and 571 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 55 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on March 2, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Orphans' Court Division, No. CYS 131 of 2006
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
In these consolidated appeals, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) and Z.S.W., through her the guardian ad litem, appeal from the Order of the trial court denying the Petition to involuntarily terminate L.C.’s parental rights to his daughter Z.S.W. (D.O.B. 7/29/04). We reverse and remand.
Superior Court 4/1/08 - JOHN EVANS v. SODEXHO
JOHN EVANS v. SODEXHO
No. 1885 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 53 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh CountyCivil Division at No. 2006-C-577
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
John Evans (“Evans”) appeals the order entered June 6, 2007, granting defendant Sodexho’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Evans’ complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
No. 1885 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 53 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh CountyCivil Division at No. 2006-C-577
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
John Evans (“Evans”) appeals the order entered June 6, 2007, granting defendant Sodexho’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Evans’ complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
Superior Court 4/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY BANKS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY BANKS
No. 1075 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 57 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette CountyCriminal, No. 741 of 2006
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN, AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Gary Banks, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, after a jury convicted him of aggravated assault and simple assault. Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court abridged Appellant’s “absolute” constitutional right to compel the attendance at trial of his four proposed inmate-witnesses. We hold under both federal and state law, the trial court generally has discretion on motions to secure witnesses and properly exercised its discretion in this case to deny transport orders for Appellant’s proposed inmate-witnesses, absent a plausible showing the witnesses would provide material testimony favorable to Appellant’s defense. Accordingly, we affirm.
No. 1075 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 57 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette CountyCriminal, No. 741 of 2006
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN, AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Gary Banks, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, after a jury convicted him of aggravated assault and simple assault. Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court abridged Appellant’s “absolute” constitutional right to compel the attendance at trial of his four proposed inmate-witnesses. We hold under both federal and state law, the trial court generally has discretion on motions to secure witnesses and properly exercised its discretion in this case to deny transport orders for Appellant’s proposed inmate-witnesses, absent a plausible showing the witnesses would provide material testimony favorable to Appellant’s defense. Accordingly, we affirm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
