Showing posts with label Ineffective. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ineffective. Show all posts

Friday, June 18, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TRACY DANIELS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TRACY DANIELS
No. 3477 EDA 2008 2010 PA Super 112 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/18/2010

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 5, 2008,
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No. CP-51-CR-0007123-2007.
Before: SHOGAN, POPOVICH and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Tracy Daniels, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 5, 2008 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant’s counsel has filed a petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Friday, November 20, 2009

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAYMOND E. HAUN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAYMOND E. HAUN,
No. 1980 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 223 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/20/2009

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 4, 2008
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No. CP-14-CR-0001493-2004
Before: BENDER, FREEDBERG and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Raymond E. Haun (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing his petition for relief filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Appellant claims that the PCRA court erred in relying on our decision in Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 712 A.2d 288 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc), reversed, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999). For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Monday, August 10, 2009

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMEEN WARREN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMEEN WARREN
No. 1981 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 158 Atlantic: 979 A.2d 920 Filed: 8/10/2009

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered June 4, 2008
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal No.: CP-23-CR-0005176-2003
Before: BENDER, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Jameen Warren, appeals from the order entered in the Delaware 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 counsel have also filed separate petitions to remand for appointment of new counsel. We hold that PCRA counsel may not justify his failure to argue certain issues by claiming those issues are without merit, and then argue broadly that an evidentiary hearing was warranted without specifying what issues merited a hearing. Accordingly, we vacate the order, dismiss Appellant’s pro se petition, and grant counsel’s petition to remand for the appointment of new counsel.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARRICK MOORE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARRICK MOORE
No. 1442 and 1448 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 134 Atlantic: 978 A.2d 988 Filed: 7/15/2009

Appeal from the Order entered August 4, 2008,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
Criminal Division at Nos. 325, 326 and 327 of 2008
Before: BOWES, ALLEN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Garrick Moore (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court order denying his petition for extension of time to file a post-sentence motion. We remand with instructions, and hold that, for reasons of judicial economy and fairness, a defendant who raises ineffective assistance of counsel claims after being found in contempt of a Protection from Abuse order (“PFA”) and sentenced to imprisonment pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114, is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness of counsel claims, such that the record is adequate to assess the claims on direct appeal, consistent with Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003).
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SAMUEL E. HARRIS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SAMUEL E. HARRIS
No. 634 MDA 2007 2009 PA Super 78 Atlantic: 972 A.2d 1196 Filed: 4/22/2009

Appeal from the Order Entered March 30, 2007,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0002649-2001
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
The Commonwealth appeals the March 30, 2007 order granting Samuel Harris’s (“appellee’s”) petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court determined that appellee had received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file a motion to suppress his statements to the police following his arrest. After careful review, we reverse the order of the PCRA court.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CLAY WILLIAMS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CLAY WILLIAMS
No. 3458 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 250 Atlantic: 959 A.2d 1252 Filed: 10/22/2008

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 5, 2006
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal at No(s): CP-51-CR-0505851-2005
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The instant matter is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on December 5, 2006, at which time the trial court sentenced Appellant Clay Williams (hereinafter “Appellant”) to life in prison. Appellant also has filed with this Court a Petition for Remand to Trial Court to Develop Record. Upon our review, we deny Appellant’s petition, affirm his judgment of sentence, and dismiss his ineffectiveness of counsel claims without prejudice to raise them on collateral review.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here