COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN HUGHES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN HUGHES No. 177 MDA 2009 2009 PA Super 240 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/14/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered on January 20, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Criminal Division, at No(s). CP-38-CR-0002319-2006
Before: ALLEN, FITZGERALD, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: HUDOCK, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Brian Hughes, appeals from the order dated January 20, 2009, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABOR COLEMAN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABOR COLEMAN No. 995 EDA 2009 2009 PA Super 229 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/1/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on February 23, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Criminal Division, at No(s). CP-23-CR-0004715-2008
Before: STEVENS, POPOVICH, and HUDOCK*, JJ.
Opinion by: HUDOCK, J.
Appellant, Sabor Coleman, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on February 23, 2009, as made final by the denial of post-sentence motions on March 5, 2009. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RODERICK FRANCIS BAILEY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RODERICK FRANCIS BAILEY No. 1788 WDA 2007 2009 PA Super 230 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/1/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of September 18, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, No. CP-02-CR-0002377-2006
Before: KLEIN, J., McEWEN, P.J.E., and HUDOCK, J.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Concurring Statement by: McEWEN, P.J.E.
Roderick Francis Bailey appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on his convictions of various weapons charges. The trial judge, the Honorable Anthony M. Mariani, found that the consent to search was not voluntary. However, he further found that the car would have been towed and an inventory search conducted and therefore discovery of the gun in the car was inevitable. We agree and affirm. It is true that the car was not in a spot causing a hazard or blocking traffic and it was not proper to tow and inventory the car under traditional common law principles. However, the statute has a separate section allowing towing and inventory when a person is arrested and is being taken to an “issuing authority.” Since there is another section dealing with towing when the vehicle is creating a hazard, the legislative intent should be interpreted to allowing towing after an arrest even if there is no hazard.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN T. SMITH

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN T. SMITH No. 286 WDA 2009 2009 PA Super 209 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 11/13/2009 Filed: 10/30/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 14, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, No. CP-02-CR-0010635-2007
Before: KLEIN, J., McEWEN, P.J.E., and HUDOCK, J.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Steven T. Smith appeals from his judgment of sentence imposed following his open plea to four counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), four counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine), and three counts of delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine). Smith was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7-14 years’ imprisonment after the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum for each sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARCUS GIBBS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARCUS GIBBS No. 1491 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 181 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 274 Filed: 9/14/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 11, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal at No(s): CP-25-CR-0002780-2007
Before: SHOGAN, FREEDBERG and HUDOCK*, JJ.
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
Appellant, Marcus Gibbs, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 1, 2008, by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County. After review, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMAR JOHNSON

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMAR JOHNSON No. 2389 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 269 Atlantic: 961 A.2d 877 Filed: 11/17/2008
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 10, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-23-CR-0000735-2003.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, SHOGAN and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Jamar Johnson, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his conviction of multiple offenses related to the shooting of Shante Powell, an eyewitness to a double murder. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - ESTATE OF PHYLLIS ANN VERNUM BY BRIAN J. PRATT, EXECUTOR v. ESTATE OF RICHARD E. VERNUM BY HEIDI J. WENMOTH, FORMERLY HEIDI J. HULSIZ

ESTATE OF PHYLLIS ANN VERNUM BY BRIAN J. PRATT, EXECUTOR v. ESTATE OF RICHARD E. VERNUM BY HEIDI J. WENMOTH, FORMERLY HEIDI J. HULSIZER AND HEATHER SCHRUG, CO-EXECUTRICES No. 214 WDA 2008 2008 PA Super 266 Atlantic: 961 A.2d 176 Filed: 11/6/2008
	Appeal from the Order entered September 21, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County, Orphans Court, at No. O.C. 2006-00146.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, J., MCEWEN, P.J.E. AND HUDOCK, J.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
¶ 1 Appellants, Heidi J. Wenmoth, formerly Heidi J. Hulsizer, and Heather Schrug, Co-Executrices of the Estate of Richard E. Vernum, appeal from the September 21, 2007 order finding that the Slayer’s Act controls the disposition of property held by Phyllis Ann Vernum and Richard E. Vernum, as tenants by the entireties, and any and all property which could have passed to Richard E. Vernum as a result of the death of Phyllis Ann Vernum. After careful review, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN ANDERSON

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN ANDERSON No. 3422 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 247 Atlantic: 959 A.2d 1248 Filed: 10/20/2008
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of November 10, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. 0503-0333
Before: KLEIN, TAMILIA and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Steven Anderson appeals the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to dismiss pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 in which he claimed the Commonwealth did not use due diligence in bringing his case to trial under the rule. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. CALVIN EASLEY

NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. CALVIN EASLEY No. 1278 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 240 Atlantic: 960 A.2d 843 Petition for Reargument Denied 12/15/2008 Filed: 10/10/2008
	Appeal from the Judgment June 20, 2006, In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No. GD 04-8079
Before: MUSMANNO, POPOVICH, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Calvin Easley appeals the grant of summary judgment to Appellee Nationwide Assurance Company on the basis that the trial court erred in construing exclusion clauses within an automobile insurance policy issued by Appellee to deny Appellant’s claim for injuries sustained while operating a taxi. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 9/10/2008 - CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY v. THE FARMERS NATIONAL BANK OF CLAYSVILLE AND ....

CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY v. THE FARMERS NATIONAL BANK OF CLAYSVILLE AND JON HOLBERT CARTER AND PATRICIA W. CARTERAPPEAL OF: JON HOLBERT CARTER AND PATRICIA W. CARTER
No. 1360 WDA 2007 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/10/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered July 6, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,Civil, at No. 2005-2256.
Before: MUSMANNO, POPOVICH and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: HUDOCK, J.
This is an appeal from the Judgment entered in favor of Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company (Consol) and against Jon Holbert Carter and Patricia W. Carter, his wife (the Carters), in a quiet title action, wherein Consol was awarded fee simple title to the coal rights to a tract of land to which the Carters own the surface estate. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 7/1/08 - RANDOLPH D. DAHL SR. AND MARY K. DAHL v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al.

RANDOLPH D. DAHL SR. AND MARY K. DAHL v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, NATIONAL REAL ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES and INSURANCE SOLUTIONS CONCEPT, INC.
No. 1333 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 142 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered June 25, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, Civil, at A.D. No. 01-10951.
Before: MUSMANNO, POPOVICH and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: HUDOCK, J.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s final judgment entered in this case. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


Appellants raise the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the Trial Court err in dismissing [Appellants’] RESPA claim against [Ameriquest] by determining as a matter of law that the settlement escrow account created to make payment of hazard insurance on [Appellants’] property was not covered by RESPA?

2. Did the Trial Court err in dismissing [Appellants’] RESPA claim against [NREIS] by determining as a matter of law that NREIS was not a “servicer” of the mortgage as defined by RESPA?

Appellees also argue that Appellants’ failure to file a post-trial motion under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1(c)(2) waives all issues on appeal.7 Rule 227.1(c) provides that:

(c) Post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after
(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or
(2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury.

Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c). However, in this case, there was no trial on the merits of the RESPA claims. Appellants challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their RESPA claims against Appellees; Appellants do not make claims involving issues raised during a trial or which must be presented to the trial court through post-trial motions in order to be preserved. DiGregorio v. Keystone Health Plan East, 840 A.2d 361, 365 (Pa. Super 2003) (holding that a motion for post-trial relief “may not be filed pursuant to an order disposing of a motion for summary judgment or other motion relating to a proceeding other than trial”). Thus, Appellants have not waived their RESPA claims by failing to file a post-trial motion. Therefore, Ameriquest’s motion to quash is denied.

Superior Court 6/11/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DESMOND MARKEL HAMMOND

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DESMOND MARKEL HAMMOND
No. 1282 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 128 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/11/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 28, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000500-2004
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: HUDOCK, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, which granted Appellee’s petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 vacated Appellee’s judgment of sentence, and directed a new trial due to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, coupled with after-discovered evidence. The Commonwealth contends the PCRA court erred in granting Appellee a new trial on the basis (1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call as a witness and investigate properly Achille Walker and (2) after-discovered evidence in the form of Kelvin Robertson’s recanted testimony. We reverse the order granting a new trial and reinstate Appellee’s judgment of sentence.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 6/2/2008 - IN THE INTEREST OF: R.N., JR., A MINOR

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.N., JR., A MINORAPPEAL OF: R.N., JR., A MINOR
No. 1572 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 117 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/2/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 14, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,Juvenile Division, at No. CP-67-JV-0000341-2007.
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: HUDOCK, J.
This is an appeal from the dispositional order imposed following Appellant’s adjudication as delinquent for drug and firearm-related offenses. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here