COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FELIX DAVID RIVERA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FELIX DAVID RIVERA No. 344 MDA 2010 2010 PA Super 237 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/17/2010
	Appeal from the PCRA Order of February 17, 2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, Nos. CR-0000113-07, CP-36-0002586-2007
Before: MUSMANNO, BENDER, and LAZARUS, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Felix David Rivera appeals from the order dismissing his amended petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9541, et seq. After careful consideration, we reverse.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JEFFREY FINK

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JEFFREY FINK No. 2041 MDA 2008 2010 PA Super 18 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 2/16/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered October 16, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0004384-2001
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Appellant, Robert Jeffrey Fink, appeals from the judgment of sentence of four to eight years’ incarceration imposed after Fink violated conditions of his parole. Fink raises one issue for our review: “Did the court err in finding that Mr. Fink violated his [parole] by being discharged from sex offender counseling for failing to completely disclose his sexual history, where disclosure of this history required Mr. Fink to confess to committing criminal acts, and to provide information regarding these acts which could have provided an essential link in a chain of evidence resulting in criminal charges against him?” Brief for Appellant at 4. We concur in Fink’s assessment that questions posed in a questionnaire he was required to complete in sex offender counseling would reveal “essential link[s] in a chain of evidence” that could support criminal prosecution on other charges. We conclude accordingly that Fink’s responses were conditionally privileged, subject to his constitutional right against self-incrimination and our holding in Commonwealth v. Shrawder, 940 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 2007). Thus, the trial court erred in declaring Fink in violation of his parole for refusing to complete the questionnaire. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence imposed upon Fink’s parole violation and remand this matter for reinstatement of parole and probation.

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTINA MARIE HOUTZ

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTINA MARIE HOUTZ No. 1482 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 186 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/16/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 1, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Criminal Division at No. CP-38-CR-0002219-2006.
Before: KLEIN, POPOVICH, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Christina Marie Houtz appeals the judgment of sentence claiming that her probationary sentence was unduly restrictive and/or incompatible with her freedom of conscience. We reverse.

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