LINDA J. FAUST v. MICHAEL WALKER APPEAL OF: DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE OF THE DAUPHIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
No. 1166 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 38 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/11/2008
Appeal from the Order of June 4, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Domestic Relations Division at No. 1606 DR 1995
Before: ORIE MELVIN, ALLEN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Appellant Domestic Relations Office of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas appeals from the trial court order which granted the motion of Appellee Michael Walker to strike the order of attachment of income in the amount of $5,000.00 and directed Appellant to prepare an order of attachment of income in the amount of $1,800.93. Appellant presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it granted Appellant’s request to limit the attachment of income in contradiction to the specific language of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4308.1. We affirm the trial court’s order.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Superior Court - 3/10/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CARL NORTHRIP
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CARL NORTHRIP
No. 384 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 35 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/10/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated September 7, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal No. CP-52-CR-0000033-2005
Before: BENDER, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Carl Northrip, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas following his convictions of sexual crimes involving his minor daughter, S.F. We hold that the trial court erred when it prevented Appellant’s wife from testifying to S.F.’s motive to fabricate the allegations based on the Pennsylvania Rape Shield Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a), but that this error was harmless in light of Appellant’s telephone conversation with S.F. However, we hold that the trial court erred in treating Appellant’s conviction of New York Penal Law section 150.10, arson in the third degree, as a crime of violence in Pennsylvania under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
No. 384 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 35 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/10/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated September 7, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal No. CP-52-CR-0000033-2005
Before: BENDER, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Carl Northrip, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas following his convictions of sexual crimes involving his minor daughter, S.F. We hold that the trial court erred when it prevented Appellant’s wife from testifying to S.F.’s motive to fabricate the allegations based on the Pennsylvania Rape Shield Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a), but that this error was harmless in light of Appellant’s telephone conversation with S.F. However, we hold that the trial court erred in treating Appellant’s conviction of New York Penal Law section 150.10, arson in the third degree, as a crime of violence in Pennsylvania under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Superior Court 3/7/08 - APPEAL OF: LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEVAR RILEYAPPEAL OF: LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
No. 2186 WDA 2006 and 394 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 33 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 5, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair CountyCriminal No. 2005 CR 1741
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Appellant, Lexington National Insurance Corporation, appeals from an order entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas forfeiting $25,000 of a surety bond posted on behalf of Levar Andrew Riley. Because we find that the Commonwealth was not prejudiced by Riley’s breach of the bail conditions and accordingly that the forfeiture was not warranted, we reverse and remand.
No. 2186 WDA 2006 and 394 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 33 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered October 5, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair CountyCriminal No. 2005 CR 1741
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Appellant, Lexington National Insurance Corporation, appeals from an order entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas forfeiting $25,000 of a surety bond posted on behalf of Levar Andrew Riley. Because we find that the Commonwealth was not prejudiced by Riley’s breach of the bail conditions and accordingly that the forfeiture was not warranted, we reverse and remand.
Superior Court 3/7/08 IN RE: C.T. and G.T.F., Both Minors
IN RE: C.T. and G.T.F., Both MinorsAPPEAL OF: C.T., Biological Father,
No. 1150 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 31 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order of April 4, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Family Court at No. February Term, 2007, Nos. 90038 and 90040
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Concurring Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Appellant, C.T. (Father), appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children. After careful review, we affirm.
No. 1150 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 31 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order of April 4, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Family Court at No. February Term, 2007, Nos. 90038 and 90040
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Concurring Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Appellant, C.T. (Father), appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children. After careful review, we affirm.
Superior Court 3/7/2008 - MAX C. MALONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA E. MALONEY v. VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES, INC., D/B/
MAX C. MALONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA E. MALONEY v. VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES, INC., D/B/A THE MEDICAL CENTER, BEAVER, HERITAGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., BEAVER INTERNAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATION, TRI-STATE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., BRIGHTON RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., MAURICE PRENDERGRAST, M.D., AND RICHARD E. BRENNAN, M.D.
No. 346 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 32 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 18, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver CountyCivil No. GD 10369-2004
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
This is an appeal from an order entering summary judgment in favor of Appellees/defendants below in an action based on claims of medical negligence. Finding error in the trial court’s nullification of the reservation of rights clause in a tortfeasors release, we vacate the judgment to the extent of the reservation and remand.
No. 346 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 32 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/7/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 18, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver CountyCivil No. GD 10369-2004
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
This is an appeal from an order entering summary judgment in favor of Appellees/defendants below in an action based on claims of medical negligence. Finding error in the trial court’s nullification of the reservation of rights clause in a tortfeasors release, we vacate the judgment to the extent of the reservation and remand.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Superior Court - 3/5/2008 - SHEILA T. KREBS (NKA: SHEILA T. JOHNSON), Appellant at 1637 v. WILLIAM A. KREBS, III, Appellant at 1638
SHEILA T. KREBS (NKA: SHEILA T. JOHNSON), Appellant at 1637 v. WILLIAM A. KREBS, III, Appellant at 1638
No. 1637 & 1638 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 29 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 29, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations, No. 1279N1997 PACSES No. 598001611
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Sheila T. Krebs n/k/a Sheila T. Johnson (“Mother”) and Appellee/Cross-Appellant, William A Krebs, III (“Father”), appeal from the order entered in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Mother’s 2006 petition to modify the parties’ existing child support order, upon finding that Father knowingly misrepresented substantial increases in his income from 2001 to 2005, applied Father’s support arrearages retroactively to 2004, and set a payment schedule for arrears of $590.00 per month.
"Mother asks us to determine whether the court erred in declining to order Father’s support arrearages retroactive to 2001 when Father began to conceal increases in his actual income. Father asks us to determine whether the evidence of record supported the court’s decision to impose retroactive child support payments beyond the date Mother filed the modification petition. We hold the trial court properly found compelling reasons warranted child support arrearages retroactive to a date prior to Mother’s support modification petition but erred in limiting that retroactivity only to May 21, 2004 rather than extending it to January 1, 2001, when Father first failed to report the substantial increases in his income."
No. 1637 & 1638 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 29 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 29, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations, No. 1279N1997 PACSES No. 598001611
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Sheila T. Krebs n/k/a Sheila T. Johnson (“Mother”) and Appellee/Cross-Appellant, William A Krebs, III (“Father”), appeal from the order entered in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Mother’s 2006 petition to modify the parties’ existing child support order, upon finding that Father knowingly misrepresented substantial increases in his income from 2001 to 2005, applied Father’s support arrearages retroactively to 2004, and set a payment schedule for arrears of $590.00 per month.
"Mother asks us to determine whether the court erred in declining to order Father’s support arrearages retroactive to 2001 when Father began to conceal increases in his actual income. Father asks us to determine whether the evidence of record supported the court’s decision to impose retroactive child support payments beyond the date Mother filed the modification petition. We hold the trial court properly found compelling reasons warranted child support arrearages retroactive to a date prior to Mother’s support modification petition but erred in limiting that retroactivity only to May 21, 2004 rather than extending it to January 1, 2001, when Father first failed to report the substantial increases in his income."
Superior Court - 3/5/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE PHILLIPS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE PHILLIPS
No. 2249 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 30 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 12, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, August Term, 2005, No. 57 1/2
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Andre Phillips, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for robbery, possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”), and criminal conspiracy. We affirm Appellant’s convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
No. 2249 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 30 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 12, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, August Term, 2005, No. 57 1/2
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Andre Phillips, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for robbery, possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”), and criminal conspiracy. We affirm Appellant’s convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Superior Court 3/3/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN PAUL BAKER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN PAUL BAKER
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 27 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 24, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-02-CR-0002577 of 2006.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the Order granting suppression of all evidence derived from the search warrant due to the Commonwealth’s decision not to produce the confidential informant whose information was related in the affidavit of probable cause. After careful review, we reverse.
" If we were to conclude that the instant evidence was sufficient to satisfy the threshold burden articulated in Bonasorte, every suspect subject to a search warrant under analogous circumstances would be able to assert that a controlled buy with a CI never occurred and thereby request production of the CI knowing the Commonwealth’s reluctance to expose its confidential informants, thereby hoping that the Commonwealth either withdraws the charge or suffers suppression so as to protect its witness from possible harm.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, there is an important “public interest in protecting the free flow of information” in furtherance of effective law enforcement. See Bonasorte, supra, 486 A.2d at 1372 (discussing the seminal balancing test of Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957)). Without any good faith basis for believing that the informant’s identity would have been helpful to the defense, there are no grounds for production of the CI. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Appellee had met his burden that the affiant included intentional misstatements in the affidavit of probable cause. "
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 27 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 24, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-02-CR-0002577 of 2006.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the Order granting suppression of all evidence derived from the search warrant due to the Commonwealth’s decision not to produce the confidential informant whose information was related in the affidavit of probable cause. After careful review, we reverse.
" If we were to conclude that the instant evidence was sufficient to satisfy the threshold burden articulated in Bonasorte, every suspect subject to a search warrant under analogous circumstances would be able to assert that a controlled buy with a CI never occurred and thereby request production of the CI knowing the Commonwealth’s reluctance to expose its confidential informants, thereby hoping that the Commonwealth either withdraws the charge or suffers suppression so as to protect its witness from possible harm.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, there is an important “public interest in protecting the free flow of information” in furtherance of effective law enforcement. See Bonasorte, supra, 486 A.2d at 1372 (discussing the seminal balancing test of Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957)). Without any good faith basis for believing that the informant’s identity would have been helpful to the defense, there are no grounds for production of the CI. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Appellee had met his burden that the affiant included intentional misstatements in the affidavit of probable cause. "
Superior Court 3/3/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID JOHNSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID JOHNSON
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 26 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 14, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP#7702-1822 1/1
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing Appellant’s fifth petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 26 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 14, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP#7702-1822 1/1
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing Appellant’s fifth petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
Superior Court 3/3/08 - DAVID W. STRAUSSER v. PRAMCO, III & MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST CO., T/D/B/A M & T BANK
DAVID W. STRAUSSER v. PRAMCO, III & MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST CO., T/D/B/A M & T BANK
No. 954 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 28 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No. S-1774-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., HUDOCK AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Appellant appeals from the order sustaining the preliminary objections of appellee Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (“M&T”), and dismissing appellant’s amended complaint. By a separate prior order dated October 23, 2006, the trial court had earlier also sustained the preliminary objections of PRAMCO III, LLC (“PRAMCO”) and dismissed the complaint as to that entity. On appeal, appellant raises several issues of trial court error as to both appellees. Finding no error, we affirm.
No. 954 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 28 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No. S-1774-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., HUDOCK AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Appellant appeals from the order sustaining the preliminary objections of appellee Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (“M&T”), and dismissing appellant’s amended complaint. By a separate prior order dated October 23, 2006, the trial court had earlier also sustained the preliminary objections of PRAMCO III, LLC (“PRAMCO”) and dismissed the complaint as to that entity. On appeal, appellant raises several issues of trial court error as to both appellees. Finding no error, we affirm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
