COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE HALL

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE HALL No. 210 EDA 2008 2010 PA Super 79 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/4/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 6, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-51-CR-0300801-2005 and CP-51-CR-0400131-2005.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, DONOHUE, SHOGAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Appellant, Andre Hall, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 6, 2007, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The judgment of sentence included a term of imprisonment followed by probation for his conviction of voluntary manslaughter. As a condition of probation, the sentencing court directed Appellant to pay child support to the decedent’s two young children. Appellant appeals this condition. Because we hold that the portion of the sentence that required Appellant to pay child support for the decedent’s children was an illegal sentence, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERI RHODES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERI RHODES No. 143 WDA 2009 2009 PA Super 261 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/31/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered November 21, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0000110-2008
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Teri Rhodes appeals the judgment of sentence imposed following her entry of an open plea of guilty to Voluntary Manslaughter, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2503(a), in the death of her infant daughter by neonaticide. Rhodes contends that the sentence imposed, of nine to eighteen years’ incarceration, was manifestly excessive and the trial judge was motivated in imposing sentence by a pronounced bias that should have compelled him to recuse. Upon review, we concur in Rhodes’s assessment. Because the record of these proceedings establishes that the trial judge acted substantially in derogation of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code on the basis of evidence gathered ex parte, we conclude that the sentence imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion. We conclude further that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant Rhodes’s request for recusal. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this matter for re-sentencing before another jurist.

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