COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TAWANDA I. BROOKINS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TAWANDA I. BROOKINS No. 2402 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 206 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/15/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered July 15, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No. CP-46-CR-0002240-2008
Before: BENDER, DONOHUE and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Tawanda I. Brookins appeals the judgment of sentence imposed following her conviction of Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWID), Criminal Conspiracy, and Corrupt Organizations, 35 P.S,§ 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 911 (respectively). Brookins contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to sever her trial from that of her co-defendants, denying her motion for change of venue to Philadelphia County, and admitting certain expert testimony. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion for severance, as evidence of conduct by certain other defendants would not have been admissible had Brookins been tried separately. We conclude, in addition, that Brookins was unduly prejudiced by the admission of that evidence in the trial of this case. Accordingly, we vacate Brookins’s judgment of sentence and remand this case for a new trial.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WENDY COLLEEN KNELLER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WENDY COLLEEN KNELLER No. 1016 EDA 2007 2010 PA Super 122 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/14/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 23, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Criminal at No(s): CP-13-CR-0000267-2006
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, SHOGAN, FREEDBERG and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Concurring Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Judgment of Sentence Affirmed.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. EDWIN MARQUEZ

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. EDWIN MARQUEZ No. 537 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 170 Atlantic: 980 A.2d 145 Filed: 8/31/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 18, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal No. CP-51-CR-0904661-2005
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, SHOGAN, FREEDBERG and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Edwin Marquez (“Marquez”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was convicted of third-degree murder and criminal conspiracy. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. V.A.M.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. V.A.M. No. 1101 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 156 Atlantic: 980 A.2d 131 Filed: 8/10/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered March 5, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-51-CR-0603191-1986
Before: BENDER, SHOGAN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
V.A.M. (Appellant) appeals from the order denying his petition for expungement of his arrest and conviction record after he was granted a new trial on charges of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, robbery, and criminal conspiracy and the re-trial did not take place because the Commonwealth nolle prossed all charges, having failed to locate the complaining victim. We reverse and remand.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SUE ZORTMAN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SUE ZORTMAN No. 368 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 139 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Denied 9/22/2009 Filed: 7/20/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 31, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-17-CR-0000061-2007.
Before: BOWES, FREEDBERG AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Dissenting Opinion Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the sentencing court’s refusal to apply the mandatory minimum sentencing provision of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for sentencing in accordance with that statute.

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

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN ARTHUR STUTLER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN ARTHUR STUTLER No. 1602 WDA 2007 2009 PA Super 30 Atlantic: 966 A.2d 594 Filed: 2/11/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on August 3, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Criminal Division, Nos. 1/4, 2/4 and 3/4 of 2007, 106 of 2007
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KLEIN, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
John A. Stutler (“Stutler”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was found guilty of burglary, criminal conspiracy, criminal attempt to commit theft by unlawful taking, and criminal mischief. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.

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

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WENDY COLLEEN KNELLER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WENDY COLLEEN KNELLER No. 1016 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 18 Atlantic: 971 A.2d 495 Filed: 1/30/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of October 23, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County, Criminal, No. CP-13-CR-0000267-2006
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, SHOGAN, FREEDBERG and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Concurring Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Wendy Colleen Kneller appeals from a conviction for criminal conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals, in violation of Title 3, Section 325 of the Dog Law, for providing a gun and asking co-owner, Randy Miller, to kill their dog after it bit Kneller’s child. We note that the statutory language of section 325, et seq., titled “Destruction of Injured, Etc., Animals,” is not merely unclear on its face but, upon further analysis, can only be characterized as confusing. Moreover, since these various sections of the Dog Law, when read together in a reasonable manner, permit a dog owner to destroy a dog by use of a firearm, we find that the entire Dog Law is ambiguous, and under the rule of lenity, no criminal conviction under that section can stand if an owner shoots his or her dog or cat. Therefore, we reverse Kneller’s conviction.

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