Showing posts with label sexually violent predator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexually violent predator. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LESTER MASKER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LESTER MASKER
No. 2931 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 161 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/7/2010

Appeal from the PCRA Order of September 18, 2009
In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County,
Criminal Division, Nos. CR-0000003-07, CP-52-CR-0000026-2007
Before: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and LAZARUS, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Lester Masker appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition, after a hearing, filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9741-46. Masker pled guilty to one count each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, incest, indecent assault (M-1), corruption of minors, and indecent assault (M-2). The charges stemmed from Masker’s admission that he engaged in oral sex and penetrated the genitals with his tongue of his 13-year-old victim, his adopted daughter, touched her breasts with his hand, masturbated in front of her while at the same time touching and licking her, and touched her between her legs with his hands and licked her body. The inappropriate conduct occurred on and off for almost six years when the victim was eight until she was fourteen-years-old.
-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Monday, August 23, 2010

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M., A MINOR

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M., A MINOR
No. 2072 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 156 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/23/2010

Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2009
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Juvenile Division at No. CP-38-JV-0000262-2003
Before: BENDER, SHOGAN and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Appellant, J.M., appeals from the order renewing his involuntary commitment for inpatient treatment for potentially sexually violent behavior in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 6404. J.M. contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his recommitment and that a plan for his discharge was not formulated in accordance with section 6406(c). We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE D. WALLS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE D. WALLS
No. 1208 WDA 2008 2010 PA Super 54 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/7/2010

Appeal from the PCRA Order, July 18, 2008,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0014218-2002

Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., SHOGAN AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.

George D. Walls appeals from the order entered July 18, 2008, dismissing his PCRA petition without a hearing. After careful review, we are compelled to vacate in part and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BARMI FUENTES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BARMI FUENTES
No. 817 EDA 2008 2010 PA Super 36 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/17/2010

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 29, 2008
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0312481-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, & ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following Appellant’s negotiated guilty plea to the charges of aggravated indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125, and three counts of robbery, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1). On appeal, Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s determination that he is a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Megan’s Law. Specifically, Appellant contends the trial court erred in determining the Commonwealth proved by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) Appellant suffered from an antisocial personality disorder and (2) Appellant was “likely” to engage in future predatory sexual violence. We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here