John T. Bender

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.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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 The Superior Court affirmed both judgments, holding that the PFA order superseded the prior custody order and that McFarland knowingly chose a method of communication certain to result in prohibited contact with the mother, which established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.

criminal lawfamily law

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawguns

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.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Steven Paul Baker was convicted by a jury in McKean County of multiple sexual offenses against his young daughter, including rape of a child, based in part on his confession to abusing her as an infant. The trial court admitted the confession over defense objection after hearing testimony from the child’s mother, grandmother, teacher, and others describing later incidents of alleged touching when the child was around five years old. On appeal, the Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial, holding that the corpus delicti rule barred admission of the confession because the Commonwealth presented no independent evidence establishing the infant-related crimes and the later alleged conduct was not sufficiently closely related to qualify under the exception. The court reasoned that the child’s statements and other testimony concerned different acts at a different time and did not corroborate the specific offenses described in the confession.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Yeuris Almonte-Sena's appeal from the denial of his first PCRA petition after his 2023 convictions for possession of child pornography and criminal use of a communication facility based on evidence from cybertips, an administrative subpoena to an ISP, and a search warrant executed at his home. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the PCRA court's order dismissing the petition without a hearing. The court rejected the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, concluding that counsel's failure to seek suppression of evidence obtained via the IP address subpoena and search warrant did not establish prejudice because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. It also held that the lack of a requested good-character jury instruction could not have affected the verdict given the strength of the prosecution's case from multiple accounts and devices linked to the appellant.

criminal lawprocedure

Tyler George Burns appealed the denial of his PCRA petition, in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or address his mental health condition and medication use at the time of his negotiated guilty plea to charges arising from an attempted jewelry purchase with stolen credit cards. The PCRA court had held a hearing but denied relief after counsel did not present mental health records, finding no basis to conclude the plea was unknowing or unintelligent. The Superior Court deemed the pro se appeal timely under the prisoner mailbox rule, granted counsel's request to withdraw under Turner/Finley standards, and affirmed the denial. It reasoned that plea counsel had no knowledge of any mental health issues and observed no signs of incompetence, so could not be deemed ineffective, which also defeated the layered ineffectiveness claim against PCRA counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Moshe Kalmen Notis appealed his conviction and sentence for accidents involving death or personal injury after a jury found him guilty of striking and killing a bicyclist with his minivan on Route 222, along with related summary traffic offenses; a hung jury resulted on a homicide by vehicle charge. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, adopting the trial court's opinion that the evidence was sufficient to show Notis knew or should have known his vehicle was involved in an accident with a person, that the trial court properly denied a post-sentence motion based on a juror's email without a hearing, and that the jury instructions accurately conveyed the legal standard without misleading the jury. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of evidence regarding knowledge of hitting a person versus an animal, the handling of juror communications, and the formulation of jury instructions on the elements of the offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved consolidated appeals by Donell Patrice Brantley from the denial of his post-sentence motion to withdraw negotiated guilty pleas in four Dauphin County criminal cases involving charges such as receiving stolen property, retail theft, and conspiracy. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion and granted defense counsel's petition to withdraw under Anders v. California. The court reasoned that the record of the plea colloquies demonstrated the pleas were entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with no manifest injustice shown to permit post-sentence withdrawal; the appellant's claims of inadequate advice contradicted his sworn statements at the hearing and amounted to prohibited sentence-testing. The aggregate sentence of 11½ to 23 months' incarceration followed by five years' probation was upheld as consistent with the negotiated agreement.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the termination of S.S.'s parental rights to her minor child A.S. by the Orphans’ Court of Indiana County after the child was removed from the home due to reports of Mother's mental health issues, inadequate housing, and domestic violence. Following the child's adjudication as dependent, Mother was ordered to complete various services including evaluations, counseling, and parenting training, but the court found she made only minimal progress toward reunification. The Agency petitioned for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), and after hearings featuring expert testimony on bonding and the child's welfare, the orphans’ court granted the petition. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, concluding that the record supported the lower court's determination that termination was in the child's best interests based on the child's secure attachment to foster parents and developmental progress there.

family law

Jerry Jeron Daniels appealed pro se from orders denying his petitions to expunge convictions at two Adams County dockets: a 2006 jury conviction for crimes against his wife resulting in an 11-22 year sentence, and a 2005 DUI guilty plea that led to intermediate punishment later revoked to 1-3 years concurrent. Daniels claimed the arrests and convictions were invalid due to lack of proper arraignment, no arrest warrants, and other alleged procedural defects, seeking destruction of all related records. The Superior Court affirmed the denials, holding that the petitions should be treated as requests for PCRA relief but were either untimely with waived procedural claims or ineligible because the sentence had expired years earlier, leaving the court without jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a child custody dispute in which Mother Lizmarie Perez sought sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties' two children after the parents separated in 2022. The trial court awarded Mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody, with Father receiving only supervised visitation, based on the children's long-term residence with Mother and Father's limited prior contact following a protection from abuse order. Father appealed pro se, but the Superior Court affirmed the order. The court held that Father's issues were waived because his 369-page brief failed to present intelligible, properly developed legal arguments supported by the record or authority, violating appellate briefing rules.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Cole David Walsh's appeal from his conviction and sentence of 12 to 24 years in prison plus probation after a jury found him guilty of aggravated indecent assault of a child and related offenses based on allegations by his wife's goddaughter. Walsh challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict and the trial court's denial of his post-sentence motion for a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the victim's testimony alone was sufficient to support the convictions and that inconsistencies in her statements were adequately explained at trial, including through expert testimony on victim behavior. The court further concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the verdict was not contrary to the evidence.

criminal law

This case is a divorce action in which Gregory Stapp (Husband), a self-employed personal injury attorney, appeals from the denial of reconsideration of a trial court order compelling him to respond to discovery requests from Brenda Stapp (Wife) regarding his law firm finances and IOLTA account. The Superior Court affirmed the order. The court held that the requested discovery, including redacted IOLTA statements and settlement lists, was necessary to allow Wife to obtain financial information for equitable distribution under the Divorce Code. The order was narrowly tailored to protect client confidentiality through redactions, and Husband had been dilatory in prior responses to discovery.

family lawprocedure

This case involved Lebanon County Children and Youth Services petitioning to terminate the parental rights of N.R.D. (Father) to his child P.R.D., who was born in March 2024, tested positive for cocaine, and was placed in foster care shortly after birth due to Father's unavailability and substance issues. The Superior Court had previously affirmed grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) but remanded for a best-interests analysis under § 2511(b); on remand, the orphans' court conducted that analysis and again terminated Father's rights. The court credited evidence that the child had no bond with Father or siblings, had lived with the same foster parents since she was days old, was thriving in their care, and would not suffer harm from termination, while Father had minimal compliance with the permanency plan and had not visited the child since June 2024. The Superior Court affirmed, deferring to the orphans' court's credibility findings and needs-and-welfare determination.

family law

The case concerned charges against corrections officer Frank Rodney Chilcote for allegedly smuggling chewing tobacco into a tobacco-free prison and providing it to an inmate, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(c) (providing contraband to an inmate, non-controlled substance) and 61 Pa.C.S. § 5902(a)(1) (contraband prohibited). The trial court granted the defendant's pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus, ruling that chewing tobacco does not qualify as a poison or prohibited substance under the statutes, and the Superior Court affirmed. The Commonwealth's argument that nicotine in tobacco makes it a poison or drug was rejected as leading to absurd results, such as criminalizing common caffeine-containing items, and a specific tobacco contraband provision was not invoked. Some issues were deemed waived for not being preserved in the appellate filings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Andrew Lewis Ramage's appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County after he entered an open nolo contendere plea to aggravated indecent assault of a child. The factual basis established that Ramage had inserted his fingers into the vagina of his girlfriend's 12-month-old daughter, causing internal tears and other injuries, and had confessed to the assault. The trial court sentenced him to 10 to 20 years of incarceration following review of a presentence investigation report, a Sexual Offenders Assessment Board report, and testimony from the child's treating physician. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing court properly considered all required statutory factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d), including the victim's extreme vulnerability as a preverbal infant, the physical and lifelong harm inflicted, and the circumstances of the offense, without abusing its discretion.

criminal law

This case involves the Commonwealth's appeal from a trial court order denying its motion to recuse the presiding judge in a criminal prosecution of Michael T. Martin Jr. for sexual offenses against a minor. After the jury convicted the defendant, the trial court issued an order vacating the verdict with prejudice, exonerating the defendant, and ordering his release, based on both insufficient evidence and the weight of the evidence; that ruling was later reversed on appeal, leading to a remand for retrial. The Commonwealth sought recusal, arguing that the trial judge's prior opinion contained repeated statements declaring the defendant's factual innocence, creating an appearance of impropriety that could lead a reasonable observer to question the judge's impartiality on retrial. The Superior Court agreed, holding that the combination of the judge's legal conclusions and expansive commentary on innocence required recusal under the appearance-of-impropriety standard, even absent any claim of actual bias. The court therefore reversed the order denying recusal and remanded the case for assignment to a different judge.

criminal lawprocedure