COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM BARGER
No. 1671 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 202 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/29/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on August 25, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-67-CR-0004998-2005
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, BENDER, BOWES, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, William Barger, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 25, 2006. We affirm in part and vacate in part.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
On reargument, Appellant raises one issue:
In a bifurcated misdemeanor/felony and summary trial, the jury determined that the Commonwealth’s sole witness was not credible, completely repudiated her allegations involving the same conduct, and acquitted the defendant of all misdemeanor and felony offenses. Pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel under the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions, the issue of this single witness’ credibility was decided adverse to the Commonwealth, and it was thereby precluded from relitigating that issue in the non-jury trial on the summary [h]arassment offense. Given that no additional evidence was presented to support the trial court’s verdict, the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding the defendant guilty of the summary offense of [h]arassment.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Superior Court 8/29/08 - ELIZABETH MESCANTI v. WILLIAM M. MESCANTI
ELIZABETH MESCANTI v. WILLIAM M. MESCANTI
No. 3194 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 201 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/29/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 19, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,Civil, at No. 07-09667.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., ALLEN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
William M. Mescanti (“Husband”) appeals from the order of the trial court granting a final protection from abuse (“PFA”) order in favor of Elizabeth Mescanti (“Wife”). We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 3194 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 201 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/29/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 19, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,Civil, at No. 07-09667.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., ALLEN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
William M. Mescanti (“Husband”) appeals from the order of the trial court granting a final protection from abuse (“PFA”) order in favor of Elizabeth Mescanti (“Wife”). We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/29/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHARLES WARNER BAXTER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHARLES WARNER BAXTER
No. 622 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 200 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/29/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered March 8, 2006, In the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Criminal Division, at No. 2340 of 2005.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Concurring Statement by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from the order entered on March 8, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County that granted a new trial to Appellee, Charles Warner Baxter, on grounds that the prosecution of Appellee under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111(g)(4) violated Appellee’s due process rights as well as the separation of powers doctrine. After review, for the reasons that follow, we find there is no constitutional infirmity to the Commonwealth’s prosecution of a prospective purchaser of a firearm for providing materially false statements in connection with that attempted purchase under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101, et seq. (the “Firearms Act”). Accordingly, we reverse the order granting a new trial and re-instate the jury’s verdict and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 622 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 200 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/29/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered March 8, 2006, In the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Criminal Division, at No. 2340 of 2005.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Concurring Statement by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from the order entered on March 8, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County that granted a new trial to Appellee, Charles Warner Baxter, on grounds that the prosecution of Appellee under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111(g)(4) violated Appellee’s due process rights as well as the separation of powers doctrine. After review, for the reasons that follow, we find there is no constitutional infirmity to the Commonwealth’s prosecution of a prospective purchaser of a firearm for providing materially false statements in connection with that attempted purchase under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101, et seq. (the “Firearms Act”). Accordingly, we reverse the order granting a new trial and re-instate the jury’s verdict and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Superior Court 8/27/08 - B.T.W., ON BEHALF OF T.L., A MINOR v. P.J.L.
B.T.W., ON BEHALF OF T.L., A MINOR v. P.J.L.
No. 1337 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 199 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/27/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 28, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Civil No. 2007-40075
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: BOWES, J.
This is an appeal from an order entered pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act (PFA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-17, precluding any contact between Appellant/stepmother and her stepdaughter, T.L., for a period of three years. We affirm, finding that the trial court’s jurisdiction over Appellant, a resident of Maryland, and over the subject matter of the action is conferred by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5401-5482, despite commission of the abusive acts in a forum other than Pennsylvania. We also find that Appellant’s conduct constituted abuse, not permissible corporal punishment for misbehavior.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Appellant presents two issues on appeal, challenging both the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear Appellee’s petition, and the sufficiency of evidence of abuse to warrant entry of a PFA order. We note that “in a PFA action, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions for an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050, 1054-55 (Pa. Super. 2007).
The first claim presented rests on the assertion that although the trial court was possessed of personal jurisdiction over Appellant even as a nonresident through the medium of the custody order, subject matter jurisdiction was not conferred by that or any other means. In so doing she asserts that “the question is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to apply the statutory laws of Pennsylvania to these parties where the subject matter is not related to a custody issue, and where the alleged harm or injury occurred outside of Pennsylvania.” (Appellant’s Brief at 13). Appellant’s argument fails as the major premise of her syllogism is faulty.
As Appellant concedes, “[e]xclusive, continuing jurisdiction” over child custody matters is conferred by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a) on the court which has made an initial custody determination, and endures until the child’s connection with the Commonwealth is severed. Since Appellee, the partial custodian, resides in Pennsylvania, the nexus between T.L., Appellant, and the Commonwealth remains intact.
No. 1337 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 199 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/27/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 28, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Civil No. 2007-40075
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: BOWES, J.
This is an appeal from an order entered pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act (PFA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-17, precluding any contact between Appellant/stepmother and her stepdaughter, T.L., for a period of three years. We affirm, finding that the trial court’s jurisdiction over Appellant, a resident of Maryland, and over the subject matter of the action is conferred by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5401-5482, despite commission of the abusive acts in a forum other than Pennsylvania. We also find that Appellant’s conduct constituted abuse, not permissible corporal punishment for misbehavior.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Appellant presents two issues on appeal, challenging both the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear Appellee’s petition, and the sufficiency of evidence of abuse to warrant entry of a PFA order. We note that “in a PFA action, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions for an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050, 1054-55 (Pa. Super. 2007).
The first claim presented rests on the assertion that although the trial court was possessed of personal jurisdiction over Appellant even as a nonresident through the medium of the custody order, subject matter jurisdiction was not conferred by that or any other means. In so doing she asserts that “the question is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to apply the statutory laws of Pennsylvania to these parties where the subject matter is not related to a custody issue, and where the alleged harm or injury occurred outside of Pennsylvania.” (Appellant’s Brief at 13). Appellant’s argument fails as the major premise of her syllogism is faulty.
As Appellant concedes, “[e]xclusive, continuing jurisdiction” over child custody matters is conferred by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a) on the court which has made an initial custody determination, and endures until the child’s connection with the Commonwealth is severed. Since Appellee, the partial custodian, resides in Pennsylvania, the nexus between T.L., Appellant, and the Commonwealth remains intact.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Superior Court 8/26/08 - IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.L.G.
IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.L.G.APPEAL OF: N.P., NATURAL MOTHER
No. 899 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 198 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/26/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered March 22, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans’ Court at No. 06-0072
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, BENDER, BOWES, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
N.P. (Mother), the biological parent of C.L.G. (d.o.b. 4/14/05) appeals from the order entered on March 22, 2007, granting the petition filed by the Chester County Department of Children, Youth and Families (Agency) and involuntarily terminating her parental rights to C.L.G. Upon reconsideration, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 899 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 198 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/26/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered March 22, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans’ Court at No. 06-0072
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, BENDER, BOWES, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
N.P. (Mother), the biological parent of C.L.G. (d.o.b. 4/14/05) appeals from the order entered on March 22, 2007, granting the petition filed by the Chester County Department of Children, Youth and Families (Agency) and involuntarily terminating her parental rights to C.L.G. Upon reconsideration, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Superior Court 8/21/08 - IN THE INTEREST OF: R.P., A MINOR,
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.P., A MINOR,APPEAL OF: K.P.IN THE INTEREST OF: L.P., A MINORAPPEAL OF: K.P.No. 2741 and 2742 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 196 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/21/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Civil Division,at No. Juvenile No. 124-2007 and 123-2007.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
This is an appeal by K.P. (“Mother”) from the October 4, 2007 order adjudicating her children, L.P., born July 21, 2003, and R.P., born February 20, 2006, dependent. L.P. and R.P., who are not consanguineous, were adopted from different orphanages in Russia. L.P. was adopted in June 2004, and R.P. was adopted in June 2007, only two months before suffering brutal, life-threatening physical abuse at the hands of Father. N.T., 9/17/07, at 18-19. They were declared dependent children after the trial court found that Mother was a perpetrator by omission of R.P.’s abuse. As the court also found aggravated circumstances, the October 4, 2007 order provided that no further efforts to preserve or reunify the family were necessary. Following our exhaustive review of the notes of testimony, relevant case law, and arguments of the parties, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Civil Division,at No. Juvenile No. 124-2007 and 123-2007.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
This is an appeal by K.P. (“Mother”) from the October 4, 2007 order adjudicating her children, L.P., born July 21, 2003, and R.P., born February 20, 2006, dependent. L.P. and R.P., who are not consanguineous, were adopted from different orphanages in Russia. L.P. was adopted in June 2004, and R.P. was adopted in June 2007, only two months before suffering brutal, life-threatening physical abuse at the hands of Father. N.T., 9/17/07, at 18-19. They were declared dependent children after the trial court found that Mother was a perpetrator by omission of R.P.’s abuse. As the court also found aggravated circumstances, the October 4, 2007 order provided that no further efforts to preserve or reunify the family were necessary. Following our exhaustive review of the notes of testimony, relevant case law, and arguments of the parties, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/21/08 - N THE INTEREST OF: L.P., A MINOR
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.P., A MINOR, DATE OF BIRTH 02/02/2006APPEAL OF: K.P.IN THE INTEREST OF: L.P., DATE OF BIRTH 7/21/2003, A MINORAPPEAL OF: K.P.IN THE INTEREST OF: L.P., A MINORAPPEAL OF: J.P.IN THE INTEREST OF: R.P., A MINORAPPEAL OF: J.P
No. 3037 & 3108 EDA 2007, 36 and 37 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 197 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/21/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Civil Division,at No. Juvenile No. 124-2007 and 123-2007.
Before: BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
K.P. (“Mother”) and J.P. (“Father”) (also collectively referred to as “Parents”) appeal from the orders dated October 31, 2007, which were filed November 1, 2007, changing the placement goal for their children, R.P. and L.P., to adoption. As these appeals involve identical parties and derive from the same permanency hearing determinations and orders, we have elected to discuss them together. Following our complete and thorough review of the record, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 3037 & 3108 EDA 2007, 36 and 37 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 197 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/21/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Civil Division,at No. Juvenile No. 124-2007 and 123-2007.
Before: BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
K.P. (“Mother”) and J.P. (“Father”) (also collectively referred to as “Parents”) appeal from the orders dated October 31, 2007, which were filed November 1, 2007, changing the placement goal for their children, R.P. and L.P., to adoption. As these appeals involve identical parties and derive from the same permanency hearing determinations and orders, we have elected to discuss them together. Following our complete and thorough review of the record, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Superior Court 8/20/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICHOLAS HUDSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICHOLAS HUDSON
No. 3291 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 195 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/20/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 14, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003989-2004
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., PANELLA, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Nicholas Hudson, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered June 14, 2006, by the Honorable Brian J. Johnson, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
On appeal, Hudson raises the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the Trial Court erred by not granting Appellant’s
motion for mistrial after Commonwealth’s witness testified
that Appellant “had to see his P.O. (probation officer)?
…
B. Were the guilty verdicts against the weight of the
evidence?
…
C. Did the Court err in not giving a Kloiber instruction?
…
D. Did the Court err in allowing the Commonwealth to
introduce evidence of alleged flight?
…
E. Did the Court err in instructing the jury on the issue of
flight as consciousness of guilt?
…
F. Did the Court err in instructing the jury on the concepts of
accomplice and conspiratorial liability?
No. 3291 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 195 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/20/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 14, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003989-2004
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., PANELLA, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Nicholas Hudson, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered June 14, 2006, by the Honorable Brian J. Johnson, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
On appeal, Hudson raises the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the Trial Court erred by not granting Appellant’s
motion for mistrial after Commonwealth’s witness testified
that Appellant “had to see his P.O. (probation officer)?
…
B. Were the guilty verdicts against the weight of the
evidence?
…
C. Did the Court err in not giving a Kloiber instruction?
…
D. Did the Court err in allowing the Commonwealth to
introduce evidence of alleged flight?
…
E. Did the Court err in instructing the jury on the issue of
flight as consciousness of guilt?
…
F. Did the Court err in instructing the jury on the concepts of
accomplice and conspiratorial liability?
Superior Court 8/20/08 - CHARLES MOYER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF RONALD MOYER AND JUDY MOYER, DECEASED et al.
CHARLES MOYER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF RONALD MOYER AND JUDY MOYER, DECEASED, DONNA MOYER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF RONALD MOYER AND JUDY MOYER, DECEASED AND LEISURECRAFT, INC., v. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., TELEDYNE, INC. SUPERIOR AIR PARTS, INC., PIEDMONT HAWTHORNE AVIATION, INC., A/K/A AND/OR F/K/A PIEDMONT AVIATION SERVICES, INC., PIEDMONT/HAWTHORNE AVIATION, INC., AND/OR PIEDMONT HAWTHORNE AVIATION, LLC AND DIVCO, INC.
No. 1402 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 194 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/20/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 7, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil No. January Term, 2005, No. 02577
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, PJ, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
This is an appeal from an order rendering final the judgments in favor of Appellees/defendants below in an action based on claims of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty stemming from an aviation accident. The first decision sustains the preliminary objections of DivCo, Inc., and the second and third enter summary judgment in favor of, respectively, Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, Inc., and its affiliates (Piedmont), and Teledyne Technologies and its affiliates (TCM). We affirm, finding inapplicable the exceptions to the 18 year statute of repose established by the governing statute in this matter, the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), Pub.L. No 103-298, 108 Stat. 1552 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C.S. §40101, Note) .
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1402 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 194 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/20/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 7, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil No. January Term, 2005, No. 02577
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, PJ, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
This is an appeal from an order rendering final the judgments in favor of Appellees/defendants below in an action based on claims of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty stemming from an aviation accident. The first decision sustains the preliminary objections of DivCo, Inc., and the second and third enter summary judgment in favor of, respectively, Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, Inc., and its affiliates (Piedmont), and Teledyne Technologies and its affiliates (TCM). We affirm, finding inapplicable the exceptions to the 18 year statute of repose established by the governing statute in this matter, the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), Pub.L. No 103-298, 108 Stat. 1552 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C.S. §40101, Note) .
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Monday, August 18, 2008
Superior Court 8/18/08 - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY v. JESSE AYERS
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY v. JESSE AYERS
No. 839 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 193 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/18/2008
Appeal from the Order of April 16, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, No. GD 05-29620
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Dissenting Statement by: MUSMANNO, J.
Appellant Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) appeals from an order which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted Appellee Jesse Ayers’ (“Ayers”) motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with instructions.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 839 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 193 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/18/2008
Appeal from the Order of April 16, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, No. GD 05-29620
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Dissenting Statement by: MUSMANNO, J.
Appellant Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) appeals from an order which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted Appellee Jesse Ayers’ (“Ayers”) motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with instructions.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Friday, August 15, 2008
Superior Court 8/15/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. YUSEF MITCHELL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. YUSEF MITCHELL
No. 1920 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 190 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 28, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal, No. CP-51-CR-0208791-2000
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, AND GANTMAN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Concurring Statement by: KLEIN, J.
Appellant, Yusef Mitchell, appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following revocation of his “special” probation. Appellant asks us to determine whether the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“Board”) had exclusive jurisdiction over his special probation for purposes of revocation and re-sentencing following revocation. Consistent with established Pennsylvania law, we hold the trial court retained the power, authority, or jurisdiction to determine whether Appellant violated his special probation, to revoke it, and to re-sentence Appellant following revocation of the special probation, notwithstanding the Board’s duties of supervision. Accordingly, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1920 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 190 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 28, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal, No. CP-51-CR-0208791-2000
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, AND GANTMAN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Concurring Statement by: KLEIN, J.
Appellant, Yusef Mitchell, appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following revocation of his “special” probation. Appellant asks us to determine whether the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“Board”) had exclusive jurisdiction over his special probation for purposes of revocation and re-sentencing following revocation. Consistent with established Pennsylvania law, we hold the trial court retained the power, authority, or jurisdiction to determine whether Appellant violated his special probation, to revoke it, and to re-sentence Appellant following revocation of the special probation, notwithstanding the Board’s duties of supervision. Accordingly, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/15/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDMOND JACKSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDMOND JACKSON
No. 2758 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 192 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on July 21, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Criminal Division, at No(s). June Term, 2005 - No. 0344 1/1,March Term, 2005 - No. 0588 2/3.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, AND SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Edmond Jackson, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 21, 2006. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Was the evidence insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction of the attempted murder of Detective Dove because Appellant did not raise his arm and fire a shot at the Detective?
2. Was the evidence insufficient to support Appellant’s convictions for aggravated assault insofar as the evidence failed to establish that Appellant or his alleged coactors intended to shoot anyone other than Wesley and the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply.
No. 2758 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 192 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on July 21, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Criminal Division, at No(s). June Term, 2005 - No. 0344 1/1,March Term, 2005 - No. 0588 2/3.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, AND SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Edmond Jackson, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 21, 2006. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Was the evidence insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction of the attempted murder of Detective Dove because Appellant did not raise his arm and fire a shot at the Detective?
2. Was the evidence insufficient to support Appellant’s convictions for aggravated assault insofar as the evidence failed to establish that Appellant or his alleged coactors intended to shoot anyone other than Wesley and the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply.
Superior Court 8/15/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN MICHAEL FLEMING
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN MICHAEL FLEMING
No. 2022 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 191 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court ofCommon Pleas of York County, Criminal Division,No. CP-67-CR-0002246-2007
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the October 29, 2007, Order granting appellee Brian Fleming’s petition to direct the District Attorney of York County to accept him into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program. Citing a 1998 Maryland felony drug conviction, the Commonwealth had refused to accept appellee into ARD following his March 14, 2007, arrest for driving under the influence (DUI).
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 2022 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 191 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court ofCommon Pleas of York County, Criminal Division,No. CP-67-CR-0002246-2007
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the October 29, 2007, Order granting appellee Brian Fleming’s petition to direct the District Attorney of York County to accept him into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program. Citing a 1998 Maryland felony drug conviction, the Commonwealth had refused to accept appellee into ARD following his March 14, 2007, arrest for driving under the influence (DUI).
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/15/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.
No. 364 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 189 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of PhiladelphiaCounty, Family Court, No. JP#76-06-08
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals an order precluding evidence and dismissing serious charges against a juvenile for the Commonwealth’s failure to meet what can only be described as a very brief discovery deadline. We agree with the Commonwealth and reverse for an adjudicatory hearing
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 364 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 189 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of PhiladelphiaCounty, Family Court, No. JP#76-06-08
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals an order precluding evidence and dismissing serious charges against a juvenile for the Commonwealth’s failure to meet what can only be described as a very brief discovery deadline. We agree with the Commonwealth and reverse for an adjudicatory hearing
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Superior Court 8/14/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LARRY MILLER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LARRY MILLER
No. 528 EDA 2004 2008 PA Super 187 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 4, 2004, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. C.P. #0212-0539 1/1
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Appellant, Larry Miller, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on February 4, 2004 of not less than 10 nor more than 20 years’ imprisonment. Following a waiver trial, appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault, aggravated assault by vehicle, causing an accident while not properly licensed, leaving the scene of an accident, driving while under the influence, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal mischief. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that appellant acted with the necessary mens rea to be convicted of aggravated assault.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 528 EDA 2004 2008 PA Super 187 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 4, 2004, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. C.P. #0212-0539 1/1
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Appellant, Larry Miller, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on February 4, 2004 of not less than 10 nor more than 20 years’ imprisonment. Following a waiver trial, appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault, aggravated assault by vehicle, causing an accident while not properly licensed, leaving the scene of an accident, driving while under the influence, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal mischief. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that appellant acted with the necessary mens rea to be convicted of aggravated assault.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court - 8/14/08 - APPEAL OF: SALGALS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AMERICAN TAXI, AND AMERICAN TAXI
COLIN BOATIN v. LAUREN MILLER AND SALGALS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AMERICAN TAXI, AND AMERICAN TAXI APPEAL OF: SALGALS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AMERICAN TAXI, AND AMERICAN TAXI
No. 878 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 188 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/14/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 23, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Civil Division at No(s): 2006 CV 5546
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, Salgas, Inc., individually and d/b/a American Taxi, and American Taxi, appeal from the trial court’s order entered on April 23, 2007, denying their petition to open default judgment. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 878 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 188 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/14/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 23, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Civil Division at No(s): 2006 CV 5546
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, Salgas, Inc., individually and d/b/a American Taxi, and American Taxi, appeal from the trial court’s order entered on April 23, 2007, denying their petition to open default judgment. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Superior Court 8/12/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT GUERRA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT GUERRA
No. 1331 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 185 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/12/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 1, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal at No(s): CP-23-CR-0004642-2000
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Robert Guerra (“Guerra”) appeals from the order entered on May 1, 2007, by the Honorable Patricia H. Jenkins, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, which denied his petition to reinstate credit towards restitution. After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
¶ 9 On appeal, Guerra raises the following issue for our review:
Did the lower court err in failing to reinstate and give Appellant credit for the monies paid to the victim’s parent (to whom restitution was ordered at sentencing) as part of a Release-Settlement executed and entered by and between the victim’s parents and the Appellant.
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (italics omitted).
Guerra’s sole issue is, in essence, that he is entitled to full credit for restitution because the victim’s family received a civil settlement from Guerra’s insurer, AAA-Mid-Atlantic Insurance Group. We disagree.
No. 1331 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 185 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/12/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 1, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal at No(s): CP-23-CR-0004642-2000
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Robert Guerra (“Guerra”) appeals from the order entered on May 1, 2007, by the Honorable Patricia H. Jenkins, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, which denied his petition to reinstate credit towards restitution. After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
¶ 9 On appeal, Guerra raises the following issue for our review:
Did the lower court err in failing to reinstate and give Appellant credit for the monies paid to the victim’s parent (to whom restitution was ordered at sentencing) as part of a Release-Settlement executed and entered by and between the victim’s parents and the Appellant.
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (italics omitted).
Guerra’s sole issue is, in essence, that he is entitled to full credit for restitution because the victim’s family received a civil settlement from Guerra’s insurer, AAA-Mid-Atlantic Insurance Group. We disagree.
Superior Court 8/12/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HENRY CARPENTER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HENRY CARPENTER
No. 1521 MDA 2008 2008 PA Super 186 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/12/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 24, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001463-2007
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Henry Carpenter, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 24, 2007, by the Honorable Paul M. Yatron, Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
QUESTION REVIEWED
Whether the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support appellant’s conviction for possession with intent to deliver and conspiracy in that the Commonwealth failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant possessed the marijuana in order to sell/deliver it and not merely for personal use or that appellant agreed to aid another in selling the marijuana in question?
No. 1521 MDA 2008 2008 PA Super 186 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/12/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 24, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001463-2007
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Henry Carpenter, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 24, 2007, by the Honorable Paul M. Yatron, Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
QUESTION REVIEWED
Whether the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support appellant’s conviction for possession with intent to deliver and conspiracy in that the Commonwealth failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant possessed the marijuana in order to sell/deliver it and not merely for personal use or that appellant agreed to aid another in selling the marijuana in question?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Superior Court 8/11/08 - SHARON L. STYLE v. RONALD C. SHAUB
SHARON L. STYLE v. RONALD C. SHAUB
No. 1250 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 184 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/11/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 19, 2007,Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County,Domestic Relations at PACSES No. 783101907
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellant Sharon L. Style (“Style”) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania dismissing a petition for child support filed on behalf of her adult son, Dustin Charles Shaub (“Dustin”). After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Our Court has not previously addressed the issue of whether it is permissible to assert a post-majority claim for support after a previous support order was terminated pursuant to Rule 1910.19(e). Our decisions in this area have all addressed the uninterrupted continuation of support after age 18, see, e.g., Com. ex. rel. Cann v. Cann, 418 A.2d 403, 405 (Pa. Super. 1980), or a first request for support of a mentally or physically disabled adult child. See Kotzbauer; see also Hanson v. Hanson, 625 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Super. 1993).
¶ 10 In this case, we first note that the original (pre-majority) child support order was properly terminated pursuant to Rule 1910.19(e). Rule 1910.19(e), adopted on October 11, 2002, provides a mechanism for termination of child support orders when the child becomes an adult. It requires the domestic relations section, within one year from the date when the child will reach eighteen, to issue an “emancipation inquiry” requesting relevant information regarding whether child support should be continued. If no response is received or if grounds are not asserted that would justify the continuation of child support, then the trial court may terminate the child support order without further proceedings.
Although the pre-majority child support order was properly terminated pursuant to Rule 1910.19(e), we do not agree with the trial court that Style was estopped from filing a new request for support.
No. 1250 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 184 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/11/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 19, 2007,Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County,Domestic Relations at PACSES No. 783101907
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellant Sharon L. Style (“Style”) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania dismissing a petition for child support filed on behalf of her adult son, Dustin Charles Shaub (“Dustin”). After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Our Court has not previously addressed the issue of whether it is permissible to assert a post-majority claim for support after a previous support order was terminated pursuant to Rule 1910.19(e). Our decisions in this area have all addressed the uninterrupted continuation of support after age 18, see, e.g., Com. ex. rel. Cann v. Cann, 418 A.2d 403, 405 (Pa. Super. 1980), or a first request for support of a mentally or physically disabled adult child. See Kotzbauer; see also Hanson v. Hanson, 625 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Super. 1993).
¶ 10 In this case, we first note that the original (pre-majority) child support order was properly terminated pursuant to Rule 1910.19(e). Rule 1910.19(e), adopted on October 11, 2002, provides a mechanism for termination of child support orders when the child becomes an adult. It requires the domestic relations section, within one year from the date when the child will reach eighteen, to issue an “emancipation inquiry” requesting relevant information regarding whether child support should be continued. If no response is received or if grounds are not asserted that would justify the continuation of child support, then the trial court may terminate the child support order without further proceedings.
Although the pre-majority child support order was properly terminated pursuant to Rule 1910.19(e), we do not agree with the trial court that Style was estopped from filing a new request for support.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Superior Court 8/7/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. YUSUF COPELAND
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. YUSUF COPELAND
No. 2866 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 180 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 22, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware CountyCriminal, No. CP-23-CR-0002554-2007
Before: BOWES, GANTMAN, AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which granted a motion to suppress the Commonwealth’s evidence, filed on behalf of Appellee, Yusuf Copeland. We reverse the court’s suppression order and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
The Commonwealth now raises three issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF SUPPRESSION CONSTITUTES LEGAL ERROR WHERE THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THE POLICE SEIZED ITEMS WITHIN THE AUTOMOBILE BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF SUPPRESSION CONSTITUTES LEGAL ERROR WHERE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH FOR WEAPONS WAS LAWFUL UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF SUPPRESSION CONSTITUTES LEGAL ERROR WHERE THE MARIJUANA RECOVERED FROM THE VEHICLE WAS SEIZED IN PLAIN VIEW?
No. 2866 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 180 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 22, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware CountyCriminal, No. CP-23-CR-0002554-2007
Before: BOWES, GANTMAN, AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which granted a motion to suppress the Commonwealth’s evidence, filed on behalf of Appellee, Yusuf Copeland. We reverse the court’s suppression order and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
The Commonwealth now raises three issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF SUPPRESSION CONSTITUTES LEGAL ERROR WHERE THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THE POLICE SEIZED ITEMS WITHIN THE AUTOMOBILE BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF SUPPRESSION CONSTITUTES LEGAL ERROR WHERE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH FOR WEAPONS WAS LAWFUL UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF SUPPRESSION CONSTITUTES LEGAL ERROR WHERE THE MARIJUANA RECOVERED FROM THE VEHICLE WAS SEIZED IN PLAIN VIEW?
Superior Court 8/7/08 - ROBERT A. HOFFA, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/A BEAUX CHEVAUX FARM v. RANDY S. BIMES AND QUAKERTOWN VETERINARY CLINIC, PC
ROBERT A. HOFFA, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/A BEAUX CHEVAUX FARM v. RANDY S. BIMES AND QUAKERTOWN VETERINARY CLINIC, PC
No. 1955 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 181 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Judgment July 2, 2007,In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,Civil Division at No. 0303656-13-2.
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Robert A. Hoffa, individually and t/a Beaux Chevaux Farm, appeals the judgment of compulsory non-suit in favor of Appellees Randy S. Bimes and Quakertown Veterinary Clinic, PC. Appellant claims: 1) the trial court erred in finding that the “Veterinary Good Samaritan Civil Immunity” Act (hereinafter “Veterinary Immunity Act” or the “Act”) barred any claims against Appellees save those grounded in gross negligence; 2) the trial court erred in determining that consent was not required in advance of Appellee Dr. Bimes performing a medical procedure upon Appellant’s horse; and 3) the trial court erred in concluding that a bailment did not exist absent an allegation of professional negligence in Appellant’s complaint. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1955 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 181 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Judgment July 2, 2007,In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,Civil Division at No. 0303656-13-2.
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Robert A. Hoffa, individually and t/a Beaux Chevaux Farm, appeals the judgment of compulsory non-suit in favor of Appellees Randy S. Bimes and Quakertown Veterinary Clinic, PC. Appellant claims: 1) the trial court erred in finding that the “Veterinary Good Samaritan Civil Immunity” Act (hereinafter “Veterinary Immunity Act” or the “Act”) barred any claims against Appellees save those grounded in gross negligence; 2) the trial court erred in determining that consent was not required in advance of Appellee Dr. Bimes performing a medical procedure upon Appellant’s horse; and 3) the trial court erred in concluding that a bailment did not exist absent an allegation of professional negligence in Appellant’s complaint. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/7/08 - NATHAN LERNER v. HELEN WEINGAST LERNER, M.D.
NATHAN LERNER v. HELEN WEINGAST LERNER, M.D.
No. 1789 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 183 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 1, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCivil, August Term, 2006, No. 001455
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, AND GANTMAN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Nathan Lerner, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which sustained the preliminary objections of Appellee, Helen Weingast Lerner M.D., and dismissed with prejudice Appellant’s “Dragonetti” complaint. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1789 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 183 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 1, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCivil, August Term, 2006, No. 001455
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, AND GANTMAN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Nathan Lerner, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which sustained the preliminary objections of Appellee, Helen Weingast Lerner M.D., and dismissed with prejudice Appellant’s “Dragonetti” complaint. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/7/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT WALKER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT WALKER
No. 1249 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 182 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered June 27, 2006,Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County,Criminal Division, at No. 3750 C 04.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Appellant, Robert Walker, appeals from the order entered on June 27, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County that denied his omnibus pre-trial motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy. Upon review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1249 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 182 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered June 27, 2006,Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County,Criminal Division, at No. 3750 C 04.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Appellant, Robert Walker, appeals from the order entered on June 27, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County that denied his omnibus pre-trial motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy. Upon review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Superior Court 8/6/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM SMITH
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM SMITH
No. 2668 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 179 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/6/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP#0411-0910 1/1
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered August 18, 2005 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing its case against William Smith (“Smith”). Smith was charged with aggravated assault, criminal mischief, fleeing police officers, possession of an instrument of crime, recklessly endangering another person, and simple assault based upon an incident which occurred on August 21, 2004.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it
precluded the testimony of essential witnesses
whose statements had been provided to defendant
eight days prior to trial, and then discharged the
case when the Commonwealth indicated that it
intended to appeal that ruling?
Commonwealth’s brief at 4. We begin by noting that decisions involving
discovery in criminal cases lie within the discretion of the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Rucci, 543 Pa. 261, 283, 670 A.2d 1129, 1140 (1996),
cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 (1997). The court’s ruling will not be reversed
absent abuse of that discretion. Id.
No. 2668 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 179 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/6/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP#0411-0910 1/1
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered August 18, 2005 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing its case against William Smith (“Smith”). Smith was charged with aggravated assault, criminal mischief, fleeing police officers, possession of an instrument of crime, recklessly endangering another person, and simple assault based upon an incident which occurred on August 21, 2004.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it
precluded the testimony of essential witnesses
whose statements had been provided to defendant
eight days prior to trial, and then discharged the
case when the Commonwealth indicated that it
intended to appeal that ruling?
Commonwealth’s brief at 4. We begin by noting that decisions involving
discovery in criminal cases lie within the discretion of the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Rucci, 543 Pa. 261, 283, 670 A.2d 1129, 1140 (1996),
cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 (1997). The court’s ruling will not be reversed
absent abuse of that discretion. Id.
Superior Court 8/6/08 - Comm. v. Cannon
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES P. CANNON, III
No. 66 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 178 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/6/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered October 27, 2006, Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Criminal Division at No. CP-15-CR-0005047-2005
Before: MUSMANNO, DONOHUE and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
James P. Cannon, III (“Cannon”) appeals from the judgment of sentence of 29 to 59 months of imprisonment followed by 12 years of probation. Upon review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
I. Did the [trial court] err in denying [his] motion
for Psychiatric Examination?
II. Was the evidence presented at the Sexually
Violent Predator Hearing held pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9795.4 sufficient to support the
conclusion that [Cannon] should be classified as
a Sexually Violent Predator?
III. Did the [trial court] abuse its discretion when reimposing
sentence?
No. 66 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 178 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/6/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered October 27, 2006, Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Criminal Division at No. CP-15-CR-0005047-2005
Before: MUSMANNO, DONOHUE and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
James P. Cannon, III (“Cannon”) appeals from the judgment of sentence of 29 to 59 months of imprisonment followed by 12 years of probation. Upon review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
I. Did the [trial court] err in denying [his] motion
for Psychiatric Examination?
II. Was the evidence presented at the Sexually
Violent Predator Hearing held pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9795.4 sufficient to support the
conclusion that [Cannon] should be classified as
a Sexually Violent Predator?
III. Did the [trial court] abuse its discretion when reimposing
sentence?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Superior Cout 8/5/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MONROE WILLIAMS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MONROE WILLIAMS
No. 1075 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 177 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on April 4, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No(s). CP-51-CR-0700991-2005
Before: LALLY-GREEN, SHOGAN AND HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Monroe Williams, appeals from the trial court’s April 4, 2007, judgment of sentence. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
Did not the Commonwealth fail to establish that defendant possessed a controlled substance with
intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a school, as it failed to demonstrate that the school was open at the time of the incident, and therefore, did not the lower court err in applying the mandatory sentence pursuant to the drug free school zone statute, 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 6317?
No. 1075 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 177 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on April 4, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No(s). CP-51-CR-0700991-2005
Before: LALLY-GREEN, SHOGAN AND HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Monroe Williams, appeals from the trial court’s April 4, 2007, judgment of sentence. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
Did not the Commonwealth fail to establish that defendant possessed a controlled substance with
intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a school, as it failed to demonstrate that the school was open at the time of the incident, and therefore, did not the lower court err in applying the mandatory sentence pursuant to the drug free school zone statute, 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 6317?
Monday, August 4, 2008
Superior Court 8/4/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEUCHT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEUCHT
No. 1478 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 176 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of Jun 11, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0002027-2006
Before: ORIE MELVIN, ALLEN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This case is a direct appeal from judgment of sentence. Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his classification as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). Additionally, he seeks permission to appeal the discretionary aspects of sentence. In this latter claim, Appellant contends the court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence that was outside the sentencing guidelines and unreasonable. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1478 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 176 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of Jun 11, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0002027-2006
Before: ORIE MELVIN, ALLEN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This case is a direct appeal from judgment of sentence. Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his classification as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). Additionally, he seeks permission to appeal the discretionary aspects of sentence. In this latter claim, Appellant contends the court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence that was outside the sentencing guidelines and unreasonable. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/4/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERNESTO SANES
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERNESTO SANES
No. 1295 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 175 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, July 2, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No. CP-06-CR-0003744-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., SHOGAN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Ernesto Sanes appeals from the judgment of sentence of July 2, 2007, following his conviction of one count each of possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, and persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell, or transfer firearms. In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether or not appellant was in constructive possession of the firearms; and if so, whether or not they were in “close proximity” to the contraband such that the mandatory sentencing provision of Section 9712.1 of the Sentencing Code applied. This case raises a question of first impression in this Commonwealth; to-wit, what constitutes “close proximity” for purposes of the mandatory sentencing statute. For the following reasons, we determine that appellant did constructively possess the firearms at issue; and that, while the phrase “close proximity” does not easily lend itself to precise definition, at least one of the firearms was indeed in close proximity to the illegal narcotics recovered from appellant’s bedroom. Therefore, the trial court did not err in applying the statute, and we will affirm appellant’s judgment of sentence.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1295 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 175 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/4/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, July 2, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No. CP-06-CR-0003744-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., SHOGAN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Ernesto Sanes appeals from the judgment of sentence of July 2, 2007, following his conviction of one count each of possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, and persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell, or transfer firearms. In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether or not appellant was in constructive possession of the firearms; and if so, whether or not they were in “close proximity” to the contraband such that the mandatory sentencing provision of Section 9712.1 of the Sentencing Code applied. This case raises a question of first impression in this Commonwealth; to-wit, what constitutes “close proximity” for purposes of the mandatory sentencing statute. For the following reasons, we determine that appellant did constructively possess the firearms at issue; and that, while the phrase “close proximity” does not easily lend itself to precise definition, at least one of the firearms was indeed in close proximity to the illegal narcotics recovered from appellant’s bedroom. Therefore, the trial court did not err in applying the statute, and we will affirm appellant’s judgment of sentence.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Friday, August 1, 2008
Superior Court 8/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY DODGE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY DODGE
No. 543 MDA 2002 2008 PA Super 174 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 19, 2002In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford CountyCriminal at No. 00CR000257, 00CR000476-00CR00049200CR000494, 00CR000496-00CR000500 00CR000502-00CR00050700CR000510-00CR000512 00CR000515, 00CR000555, 00CR00063100CR000637, 00CR000638, 00CR000785
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN and KLEIN, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Appellant, Timothy Dodge, appeals from the trial court’s February 19, 2002 judgment of sentence. We vacate and remand.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want state & federal case law? - click here
No. 543 MDA 2002 2008 PA Super 174 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 19, 2002In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford CountyCriminal at No. 00CR000257, 00CR000476-00CR00049200CR000494, 00CR000496-00CR000500 00CR000502-00CR00050700CR000510-00CR000512 00CR000515, 00CR000555, 00CR00063100CR000637, 00CR000638, 00CR000785
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN and KLEIN, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Appellant, Timothy Dodge, appeals from the trial court’s February 19, 2002 judgment of sentence. We vacate and remand.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want state & federal case law? - click here
Superior Court 8/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRY E. MOYER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRY E. MOYER
No. 345 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 173 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/1/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered January 24, 2006,in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,Criminal Division, at No. CP 21 CR 2562-2005.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, BOWES, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY AND DANIELS, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the January 24, 2006 order suppressing evidence seized following a traffic stop. As we conclude that Appellee, Terry E. Moyer, was subjected to an investigatory detention that was not supported by reasonable suspicion, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Need access to lots of state & federal case law? - case law
No. 345 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 173 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/1/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered January 24, 2006,in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,Criminal Division, at No. CP 21 CR 2562-2005.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, BOWES, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY AND DANIELS, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the January 24, 2006 order suppressing evidence seized following a traffic stop. As we conclude that Appellee, Terry E. Moyer, was subjected to an investigatory detention that was not supported by reasonable suspicion, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Need access to lots of state & federal case law? - case law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
