COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LONNIE MITCHELL

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LONNIE MITCHELL No. 2344 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 249 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/18/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. MC-51-CR-0022285-2008.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, SHOGAN, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Lonnie Mitchell, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 15, 2008, after he was adjudged guilty of harassment and found in indirect criminal contempt for violating a protection from abuse (“PFA”) order. Appellant’s counsel has filed a petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981). For the reasons that follow, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw, vacate the judgment of sentence with respect to Appellant’s harassment conviction, and remand this matter with instructions.

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

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.T., MINOR APPEAL OF: M.T., NATURAL MOTHER

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.T., MINOR APPEAL OF: M.T., NATURAL MOTHER No. 713 MDA 2009 2009 PA Super 211 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/4/2009
	Appeal from the Decree Dated March 30, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Orphans’ Court Division, No. A-7345
Before: BENDER, FREEDBERG, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
Appellant, M.T. (“Mother”), appeals from the decree in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, which terminated her parental rights to her minor child, J.T. Counsel for Mother has also filed with this Court both a petition for leave to withdraw as counsel and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and its progeny. We grant counsel’s petition for leave to withdraw and affirm the decision of the trial court.

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

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BLAKE TENNISON

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BLAKE TENNISON No. 1529 ED 2005 2009 PA Super 51 Atlantic: 969 A.2d 572 Filed: 3/25/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 10, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): 0401-0083
Before: STEVENS, McCAFFERY, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after the Court denied Appellant’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At issue is whether a defendant provides a “fair and just reason” to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing whenever he asserts his innocence. We hold such an assertion does not divest a judge of discretion to weigh its sincerity according to the totality of circumstances known to the judge, and to deny the motion where, as here, the motion is founded not upon a sincere assertion, but upon a desire to delay sentencing in one case in order to obtain a favorable sentence in another.

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

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY HOPFER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY HOPFER No. 3427 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 16 Atlantic: 965 A.2d 270 Filed: 1/28/2009
	Appeal from the PCRA Order entered November 8, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal No. CP-15-CR-0001417-2006
Before: ORIE MELVIN, KLEIN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Timothy Hopfer, files this pro se appeal from the order of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing as untimely his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). The PCRA court found all of his claims waived because his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was untimely filed. Appellant has also filed a motion to amend and supplement statement of matters complained of on appeal. We hold that when an appellant timely files for an enlargement or extension of time within which to file his Rule 1925(b) statement, the trial court must explain why it finds that good cause was not shown before it may deny the request. We further hold that this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Bond, 630 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 1993), does not apply when the PCRA court grants counsel’s request to withdraw representation and dismisses the PCRA petition less than twenty days before the petitioner receives counsel’s official request for withdrawal. Accordingly, we vacate the PCRA court’s order and deny as moot Appellant’s motion to amend and supplement statement.

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