| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES HOWARD NEIMAN, JR. No. 1747 MDA 2007 2010 PA Super 162 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/8/2010 | |
| Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 27, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No. CP-54-CR-0001870-2005, CP-54-CR-0001871-2005 | |
| Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, ALLEN, LAZARUS, AND MUNDY, JJ. | |
| Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J. | |
| Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: DONOHUE, J. | |
| Appellant, James Howard Neiman, Jr., challenges the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for numerous sexual offenses against two child victims. We affirm the judgment of sentence. | |
Showing posts with label sex crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex crimes. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES HOWARD NEIMAN, JR.
Labels:
Allen,
child victims,
Criminal,
Donohue,
Ford Elliot,
Gantman,
Lazarus,
Megan's Law,
Mundy,
Panella,
sex crimes,
Shogan,
Stevens
Friday, October 30, 2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v.TERRY L. SNAVELY
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v.TERRY L. SNAVELY No. 1996 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 208 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 10/30/2009 | |
| Appeal from the Order entered October 10, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0001377-2006 | |
| Before: KLEIN, FREEDBERG and CLELAND, JJ. | |
| Opinion by: CLELAND, J. | |
| Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J. | |
| Appellant Terry L. Snavely (Snavely) appeals the order revoking his parole on a sentence of imprisonment imposed on a corruption of minors charge to which he had entered an Alford plea. Because the parole-violation order recommitted him to prison but made him immediately eligible again for parole on condition he enroll in a sex offender treatment program which required an admission of guilt to the original corruption of minors offense, he contends invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination renders impossible his ability to satisfy the condition. As such, he submits the sentence is manifestly unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. | |
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Labels:
5th Amendment,
Cleland,
Criminal,
Freedberg,
Klein,
sex crimes,
sex offender
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)