The case involved Jamie Lee Wagner Jr. appealing the dismissal of his de novo appeal from convictions on five summary traffic offenses, including failing to display a registration plate and operating with a suspended license, because he did not appear for trial in the Court of Common Pleas. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's failure to appear. The court reasoned that the appellant's various constitutional challenges regarding jurisdiction, probable cause, right to travel, and other issues were frivolous and did not excuse his non-appearance or warrant reversal.
The case involved the Commonwealth appealing the juvenile court's denial of its motion to admit out-of-court statements made by a four-year-old alleged victim of sexual assault under Pennsylvania's tender years hearsay exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 5985.1) in a delinquency proceeding against minor C.A.H. for indecent assault and indecent exposure. The Superior Court affirmed the denial, holding that the statements to the grandmother, mother, and forensic interviewer did not possess sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. The core reasoning was that while the initial statement may have been spontaneous, subsequent statements lacked consistency, and testimony indicated possible motives to fabricate due to ongoing custody litigation and family disputes involving the victim's parents.
This case concerned Anderson Edward McFarland's appeal from convictions for indirect criminal contempt and a resulting parole violation. McFarland was convicted after sending messages to his child's mother on a co-parenting app to arrange contact with the child, which violated a temporary protection from abuse order that barred any contact with the mother and limited child contact to the child's phone only. The trial court imposed a sentence of one day of non-reporting probation for the contempt and resentenced McFarland on the parole violation. The Superior Court affirmed both judgments, holding that the PFA order superseded the prior custody order and that McFarland knowingly chose a method of communication certain to result in prohibited contact with the mother, which established the required wrongful intent for contempt.
This case involves Victor Bueno's pro se appeal from the denial of his first petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) following his convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, receiving stolen property, and firearms offenses. The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order dismissing the petition. The court determined that the petition was facially untimely because it was filed more than one year after Bueno's judgment of sentence became final, and Bueno neither pleaded nor proved any exception to the PCRA's one-year filing deadline under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). Although Bueno raised claims regarding PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness and procedural errors by the lower court, the appellate court held that the untimeliness barred review of the merits.
In this case, Jonathan Fernando Rodriguez-Quijano appealed his convictions for four counts of unlawful possession of a firearm after police executing an arrest warrant found multiple guns in his home and he made statements accepting responsibility for them. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the aggregate judgment of sentence of 15 to 30 years' incarceration. The court rejected the appellant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, noting substantial proof including his unsolicited admissions to officers, a post-Miranda statement acknowledging possession, his fingerprint on one firearm, and his personal items in the bedroom containing most of the weapons. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the weight challenge, as the jury's verdict was supported by consistent officer testimony and physical evidence and did not shock the conscience.
In this criminal case, Marcus Brown was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia after police responded to a call, pursued him based on an active warrant, and recovered crack cocaine and a pipe during a search incident to arrest; he was acquitted of flight to avoid apprehension. Brown appealed the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, arguing insufficient evidence due to the lack of any explicit in-court identification of him as the perpetrator. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence, granted defense counsel's petition to withdraw under Anders v. California, and held that circumstantial evidence combined with counsel's concession in opening statements that identity was not at issue was sufficient to support the convictions.