COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOEL D. BAILEY
No. 1568 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 81 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Joel D. Bailey (Appellant) appeals from the August 7, 2007, judgment of sentence of 30 days to 6 months imprisonment, fines, and costs imposed after he was convicted of driving while imbibing and driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Superior Court 4/25/08 - IN THE MATTER OF T.D.
IN THE MATTER OF T.D.APPEAL OF: J.D., FATHERAPPEAL OF: C.M., MOTHER
No. 1535 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 80 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Order of July 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington CountyOrphans’ Court at No. 63-07-0045
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
In these two consecutively listed appeals, Appellant, J.D. (Father), and Appellant, C.M. (Mother), collectively referred to as “Parents,” appeal from the order entered on July 25, 2007, that involuntarily terminated their respective parental rights to their minor son, T.D. As Parents raise parallel arguments, we address both appeals together, and after careful review, we affirm.
No. 1535 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 80 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Order of July 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington CountyOrphans’ Court at No. 63-07-0045
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
In these two consecutively listed appeals, Appellant, J.D. (Father), and Appellant, C.M. (Mother), collectively referred to as “Parents,” appeal from the order entered on July 25, 2007, that involuntarily terminated their respective parental rights to their minor son, T.D. As Parents raise parallel arguments, we address both appeals together, and after careful review, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/25/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEVEN HUTCHINSON
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEVEN HUTCHINSON
No. 1146 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 82 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The instant action is an appeal from an Order of Court entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on June 15, 2007, at which time the trial court granted the renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of Appellee Robert Steven Hutchinson (hereinafter “Appellee”) after his jury trial conviction. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of sentence.
No. 1146 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 82 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-56-CR-0000758-2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The instant action is an appeal from an Order of Court entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on June 15, 2007, at which time the trial court granted the renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of Appellee Robert Steven Hutchinson (hereinafter “Appellee”) after his jury trial conviction. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of sentence.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Superior Court 4/23/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERICA MICHALIGA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERICA MICHALIGA
No. 1351 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 78 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/23/2008
Appeal from the order entered July 2, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal at No. CP-40-MD-0000717-2007.
Before: GANTMAN, ALLEN and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the order of the trial court directing it to prosecute a private criminal complaint that the district attorney’s office had previously disapproved. We reverse.
“Additionally, there was a collective belief that [***] was attempting to use the Office of the District Attorney in an effort to redress grievances for which there are adequate civil remedies.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7. It was further concluded that the case lacked prosecutorial merit due to the potential difficulty in sustaining a conviction. Assistant District Attorney Doherty concurred with this assessment, and, therefore, ordered that the charges against [***] be withdrawn.....
......the court includes the following exchange:
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, we
have to object. The standard [of] review in this matter is
abuse of discretion.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Well, they have to
show there’s been bad faith [or] [un]constitutionality.
THE COURT: I think it’s there.
Thank you.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: The Superior Court
case, Your Honor, basically says that when a determination
has been made by the District Attorney’s Office that the
victim has adequate remedies available to them, that’s
more than a sufficient policy reason to refuse to prosecute a
private criminal complaint.
THE COURT: I understand. The Commonwealth will
proceed with the prosecution. It’s ridiculous what happened
in this case. Every time [Romanoski] did something wrong,
you prosecuted him, he moved sideways, you prosecuted him.
He got defrauded, this lady actually defrauded
him. It was improper what she did. She actually sent false
information back to the insurance company to get this check
in her name when it shouldn’t have been done.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, they
had a contract, and that means she breached the contract.
THE COURT: She violated the law.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: We’d have to show...
No. 1351 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 78 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/23/2008
Appeal from the order entered July 2, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal at No. CP-40-MD-0000717-2007.
Before: GANTMAN, ALLEN and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the order of the trial court directing it to prosecute a private criminal complaint that the district attorney’s office had previously disapproved. We reverse.
“Additionally, there was a collective belief that [***] was attempting to use the Office of the District Attorney in an effort to redress grievances for which there are adequate civil remedies.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7. It was further concluded that the case lacked prosecutorial merit due to the potential difficulty in sustaining a conviction. Assistant District Attorney Doherty concurred with this assessment, and, therefore, ordered that the charges against [***] be withdrawn.....
......the court includes the following exchange:
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, we
have to object. The standard [of] review in this matter is
abuse of discretion.
THE COURT: I think you abused your discretion.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Well, they have to
show there’s been bad faith [or] [un]constitutionality.
THE COURT: I think it’s there.
Thank you.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: The Superior Court
case, Your Honor, basically says that when a determination
has been made by the District Attorney’s Office that the
victim has adequate remedies available to them, that’s
more than a sufficient policy reason to refuse to prosecute a
private criminal complaint.
THE COURT: I understand. The Commonwealth will
proceed with the prosecution. It’s ridiculous what happened
in this case. Every time [Romanoski] did something wrong,
you prosecuted him, he moved sideways, you prosecuted him.
He got defrauded, this lady actually defrauded
him. It was improper what she did. She actually sent false
information back to the insurance company to get this check
in her name when it shouldn’t have been done.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, they
had a contract, and that means she breached the contract.
THE COURT: She violated the law.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: We’d have to show...
Monday, April 21, 2008
Superior Court 4/21/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VICTOR McKEEVER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VICTOR McKEEVER
No. 1631 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 77 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order July 31, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division at No. 2923 of 1994
Before: PANELLA, DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Victor McKeever appeals the order entered on July 31, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County that dismissed his petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, we affirm.
No. 1631 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 77 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order July 31, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division at No. 2923 of 1994
Before: PANELLA, DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Victor McKeever appeals the order entered on July 31, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County that dismissed his petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/21/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. HIRAM VARGAS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. HIRAM VARGAS
No. 1107 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 75 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order entered March 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0400271-2006
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing all charges against Appellee, Hiram Vargas. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
No. 1107 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 75 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2008
Appeal from the Order entered March 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0400271-2006
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing all charges against Appellee, Hiram Vargas. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Superior Court 4/18/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JOHN FLETCHER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT JOHN FLETCHER
No. 311 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 74 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 8, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Criminal Division at No. 1597 of 2005
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following Appellant’s guilty pleas to charges related to the sexual abuse of his minor niece, including two counts of indecent assault. Appellant was sentenced and designated a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) for purposes of Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law. Appellant presents argument on only one issue for our review: whether the SVP designation was supported where there was insufficient evidence that Appellant engaged in predatory behavior in the assaults on his niece. When this Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a determination of SVP status, “we will reverse the trial court only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to enable the trial court to determine that each element required by the statute has been satisfied.” Commonwealth v. Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480, 484 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). We affirm.
No. 311 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 74 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 8, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Criminal Division at No. 1597 of 2005
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following Appellant’s guilty pleas to charges related to the sexual abuse of his minor niece, including two counts of indecent assault. Appellant was sentenced and designated a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) for purposes of Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law. Appellant presents argument on only one issue for our review: whether the SVP designation was supported where there was insufficient evidence that Appellant engaged in predatory behavior in the assaults on his niece. When this Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a determination of SVP status, “we will reverse the trial court only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to enable the trial court to determine that each element required by the statute has been satisfied.” Commonwealth v. Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480, 484 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). We affirm.
Superior Court 4/18/08 - RECREATION LAND CORPORATION AND TREASURE LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. M. IMOGENE HARTZFELD AND THOMAS HARTZFELD
RECREATION LAND CORPORATION AND TREASURE LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. M. IMOGENE HARTZFELD AND THOMAS HARTZFELD
No. 881 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 76 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 17, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Civil Division, at No(s). 92-16-EQU
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA, and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, M. Imogene Hartzfeld and Thomas Hartzfeld, appeal from the order entered on April 17, 2007, directing them to remove a dog pen from a parcel of property. We affirm.
No. 881 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 76 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on April 17, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Civil Division, at No(s). 92-16-EQU
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA, and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellants, M. Imogene Hartzfeld and Thomas Hartzfeld, appeal from the order entered on April 17, 2007, directing them to remove a dog pen from a parcel of property. We affirm.
Superior Court 4/18/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEKEYIA GRAHAME
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEKEYIA GRAHAME
No. 3288 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 73 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of November 9, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0511061-2006
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Lekeyia Grahame appeals from the judgment of sentence entered against her following a bench trial on September 29, 2006. Grahame was found guilty of simple possession and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to 4 years’ probation. Grahame argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress because there was no valid consent to search her pocketbook, and no exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
No. 3288 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 73 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of November 9, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0511061-2006
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Lekeyia Grahame appeals from the judgment of sentence entered against her following a bench trial on September 29, 2006. Grahame was found guilty of simple possession and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to 4 years’ probation. Grahame argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress because there was no valid consent to search her pocketbook, and no exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
Superior Court 4/18/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JUSTIN WEIGLE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JUSTIN WEIGLE
No. 119 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 69 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered December 19, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. 0606-0421 1/1.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from the Order granting a motion to quash robbery charges that were included in informations filed following a preliminary hearing wherein the robbery charges were previously discharged against Appellee, Justin Weigle, for failure to establish a prima facie case. The question presented by this appeal concerns whether or not robbery is a separate non-cognate offense to the crimes held over at the preliminary hearing. We find that it is and, therefore, affirm.
No. 119 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 69 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered December 19, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. 0606-0421 1/1.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from the Order granting a motion to quash robbery charges that were included in informations filed following a preliminary hearing wherein the robbery charges were previously discharged against Appellee, Justin Weigle, for failure to establish a prima facie case. The question presented by this appeal concerns whether or not robbery is a separate non-cognate offense to the crimes held over at the preliminary hearing. We find that it is and, therefore, affirm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
