Hatchigian, D. v. Ladov Law Firm
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-06-23
David Hatchigian, proceeding pro se, filed his fourth lawsuit arising from a dispute over a $232 reimbursement from Ford Motor Company and a dealership, this time suing the lawyers and a witness from prior proceedings for fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on alleged perjured testimony. The trial court dismissed the claims against defendant John McEleney pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 233.1, which allows dismissal of repetitive pro se actions. The Superior Court affirmed, reasoning that the claims were sufficiently related to prior actions against the same underlying parties, and the addition of new defendants like attorneys did not avoid preclusion under the rule.
procedure
Com. v. Penn, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-06-23
This case involves Allen Penn's appeal from a partial grant of his PCRA petition in Allegheny County, where he had pleaded guilty to persons not to possess a firearm and possession with intent to deliver. The PCRA court reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc but denied his request to withdraw the plea and rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Penn appealed that denial, but the Superior Court quashed the appeal without prejudice. The court reasoned that once a PCRA court reinstates direct appeal rights, it may not reach the merits of remaining claims, as those determinations are advisory and not separately appealable, per precedent such as Commonwealth v. Miller.
criminal law
Com. v. Rosario, K.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-06-11
This case involved Keith Anthony Rosario's appeal from his resentencing in Washington County after convictions for attempted homicide, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of kidnapping stemming from a 2017 assault and shooting of a victim. Following prior appeals that vacated parts of the original sentence for illegality, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 25 to 50 years' imprisonment plus 12 months of re-entry supervision. Rosario challenged both the discretionary aspects of the sentence as excessive and its legality under merger rules and double jeopardy principles, including a claim that the merger statute violated separation of powers. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion, the sentence was legal under existing precedent on merger and inchoate crimes, and the constitutional challenge to the merger statute was foreclosed by prior case law.
criminal lawprocedure
Com. v. Bush, B.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-06-09
In this case, Brian J. Bush appealed from the denial of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the validity of his 1992 guilty plea and aggregate 20- to 80-year sentence for robbery, kidnapping, rape, and related offenses based on a gunpoint kidnapping and rape. Bush argued that his due process rights were violated because the commitment papers (DC-300B forms) were not signed by the sentencing judge until 27 years later, rendering them illegal under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9764(a)(8). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the statute governs transfer procedures between county and state facilities rather than creating a remedy for prisoners, and that the certified record—including guilty plea and sentencing transcripts—sufficiently confirmed the legitimate imposition of the sentence to authorize continued detention. The court noted that Bush did not dispute the validity of his plea or sentence itself.
criminal lawprocedure
Estate of: Lucas, T. Appeal of: Newransky, P.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-06-09
This case concerns the administration and distribution of the estate of Timothy P. Lucas under his will, which directed that if his mother predeceased him the residue would be divided equally among his three siblings. After the testator's death, disputes arose over whether Pennsylvania's Anti-Lapse Statute applied to the shares of two deceased siblings, allowing their children to take per capita, or whether the surviving sibling was entitled to the entire residue. The Orphans' Court held that the statute applied and ordered a one-third share to the surviving sibling and two-thirds to the issue of the deceased siblings. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, concluding that the new arguments raised by appellant Patricia Ann Newransky were waived under the law-of-the-case doctrine and that the statutory subsection she invoked did not apply because surviving issue existed to take under the primary anti-lapse provision.
propertyprocedure
Com. v. McAllister, L.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-06-09
The case involved Leo Joseph McAllister's appeal from the denial of his second petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) following his 2019 convictions for indecent assault and corruption of minors, which resulted in a mandatory 25-to-50-year sentence. The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order dismissing the petition as untimely. The court reasoned that McAllister failed to plead any exceptions to the PCRA's one-year filing deadline, his claims regarding a misfiled sentencing notice and ineffective assistance of counsel were either waived or did not qualify as newly discovered facts, and all issues raised had been known to him well before the filing of this petition.
criminal lawprocedure