COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY BERNARDLY JONES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY BERNARDLY JONES No. 1916 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 140 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/4/2010
	Appeal from the PCRA Order July 24, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at Nos. CR-0000287-02 and CP-48-CR-0003796-2002
Before: OTT, J., McEWEN, P.J.E., AND CLELAND*, J.
Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Appellant, Anthony Bernardly Jones (Jones), appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46 (PCRA). Jones argues the sentencing court erred in not merging two sentences imposed as result of two convictions for violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105. Because the doctrine of merger is not implicated here, we affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KAARA TICKEL

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KAARA TICKEL No. 3476 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 135 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/2/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 28, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware Couny Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0000369-2009
Before: STEVENS, GANTMAN, and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas after Appellant Kaara Tickel was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, driving on roadways laned for traffic, a stop sign violation, and careless driving. Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. We affirm.

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

Superior Court 9/29/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS
No. 1013 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 232 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/29/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 30, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002956-2005
Before: PANELLA, SHOGAN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Michael T. Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on April 30, 2007, by the Honorable Peter Paul Olszewski, Jr., Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. After careful review, we affirm.

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

Superior Court 7/25/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSHUA BOOZE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSHUA BOOZE
No. 2854 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 166 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of September 11, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-39-CR-0001800-2005.
Before: BOWES, ALLEN AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Joshua Michael Booze appeals from the September 11, 2006 judgment of sentence of twenty-three to forty-six years incarceration imposed after a jury found him guilty of two counts each of robbery and false imprisonment, and one count each of burglary, theft, and criminal conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary. After careful review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


¶ 13 Appellant now raises the following issues for our review:

A. Did the lower court err by failing to suppress from use at time
of trial the Defendant’s confession and an identification of the
Defendant through the use of a photo array which were both
the direct result of the improper seizure of other evidence by
the police?
B. Were the Defendant’s rights to a speedy trial pursuant to
[Pa.R.A.P.] 600 violated due to the delay in his being
returned from the State of New Jersey and then not being
promptly given his trial?
C. Were the Defendant’s rights to a speedy disposition of his
case violated through the Commonwealth’s failure to bring
the Defendant to trial within 120 days after he was returned
from New Jersey as required pursuant to the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers Act?
D. Did the court abuse its sentencing discretion by giving the
Defendant sentences for the robbery charges which exceeded
the sentencing guideline ranges and for giving sentences
that, for all charges and counts, were consecutive?

Superior Court 5/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICKI LEE BOOZE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICKI LEE BOOZE
No. 1072 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 92 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/1/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Criminal Division, No(s): 227 of 2007
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Concurring Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the May 29, 2007, Order dismissing the charges against appellee Ricki Lee Booze on the basis of a violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, Prompt Trial. After thorough and careful consideration, we affirm.


Rule 600(A) makes clear that the mechanical run date comes 365 days after the filing of the complaint. This Court then calculates the adjusted run date according to 600(C). The adjusted run date is calculated by omitting certain times proscribed by 600(C), “excludable time,” from the calculation of the run date.

Pursuant to Rule 600(A) and (C), we calculate
the mechanical and adjusted run dates as follows:
The mechanical run date is the date by which the
trial must commence under [Rule 600]. It is
calculated by adding 365 days (the time for
commencing trial under [Rule 600]) to the date on
which the criminal complaint is filed. As discussed
herein, the mechanical run date can be modified or
extended by adding to the date any periods of time
in which delay is caused by the defendant. Once the
mechanical run date is modified accordingly, it then
becomes an adjusted run date.