Michael J. Eakin

This case involved appellant Tiarike Hodges, who was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and related firearm and conspiracy offenses stemming from killings at a pizza parlor. He entered a guilty plea in exchange for the Commonwealth not seeking the death penalty, but it was later discovered he was only 15 at the time of the crimes, making the death penalty inapplicable under Supreme Court precedent. Hodges moved to withdraw his plea post-sentencing, arguing it was not knowing and voluntary because it was based on avoiding an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that when a plea is predicated on an illegal maximum sentence, manifest injustice results, allowing withdrawal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the enforcement and application of an antenuptial agreement in the divorce of Mary M. Colonna and Robert J. Colonna, focusing on property division, alimony, and related credits. The trial court upheld the agreement despite the wife's claims of inadequate financial disclosure regarding the husband's business value and divided assets by awarding certain sole-titled properties to the wife while splitting joint property equally, denying most alimony and fees. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the agreement's enforceability, reasoning that the overvaluation of assets did not constitute unfairness or induce the wife's consent, but it reversed the trial court's handling of mortgage debts on the wife's sole properties, holding that consistent netting of debts was required to match the treatment of jointly held assets. The court remanded for recalculation of distributions and interest. The decision drew on precedents requiring full and fair disclosure for antenuptial agreements while applying a presumption of validity rebuttable only by clear evidence of harm.

family lawproperty

This case involved an appeal from a trial court order that vacated an arbitration award granting underinsured motorist benefits to the appellant under a policy issued by Nationwide to her mother. The appellant had been in a car accident, sought coverage after her own insurer became insolvent, and the arbitrators awarded $50,000 with a credit for the tortfeasor's policy limits even though the underlying tort action was still pending; that action later ended in a defense verdict. The trial court vacated the award, ruling that the underinsured motorist claim was premature and not ripe until all liability policies were exhausted. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the arbitrators committed no error of law because Nationwide received full credit for the available liability limits, consistent with precedent allowing arbitration to proceed without prejudice to the insurer, and that the goal of expedited dispute resolution supported proceeding despite potential inconsistent outcomes with the tort verdict. The matter was remanded for the trial court to address Nationwide's remaining arguments regarding a household exclusion, primary coverage by the insurance guarantee association, and stacking.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved CW seeking partial custody of a child born to LV (Mother) during her marriage to GV (Father), claiming to be the child's biological father based on a past relationship with the mother. The trial court granted the preliminary objections of GV and dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that under Pennsylvania law, a child born into an intact marriage is presumed to be the child of the married couple, and this presumption is irrebuttable when a third party seeks to establish his own paternity against the husband. The public policy supports preserving the family unit, and GV demonstrated an intact marriage, barring CW from challenging the paternity.

family lawprocedure

The case was an appeal by Kenneth Johnson from his conviction for two counts of possession of cocaine after a jury trial. Johnson argued that the prosecutor improperly referenced his post-arrest silence by questioning a defense witness about his failure to provide an address during booking, which could have been offered earlier to support an alibi, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for a mistrial. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania agreed, holding that such commentary on post-arrest silence violates the defendant's constitutional right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution, as it is fundamentally unfair to use silence to impeach a later explanation at trial. The court therefore vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the Commonwealth's appeal of a trial court's order granting expungement of an individual's conviction records for two summary disorderly conduct offenses, which resulted from a negotiated plea after misdemeanor charges were withdrawn in 1993. The court reversed the expungement of the conviction records, holding that such data could not be expunged under the equitable balancing test applicable to non-conviction data. Instead, expungement of convictions is governed exclusively by the statutory requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122, which were not satisfied here as the individual was neither 70 years old nor deceased. The court reasoned that a charge reduction in a plea deal does not imply the original charges were unsupported or improper, and permitting expungement would discourage future negotiated settlements between parties.

criminal lawprocedure