Anne E. Lazarus

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involves Randall Jones's appeal from his convictions in Allegheny County for first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy to commit homicide, and carrying a firearm without a license, following a jury trial. The convictions stemmed from evidence including gas station video footage, shell casings, witness accounts of Jones and others following the victim from a club, and testimony from co-participant Dennis Alexander, who had a plea agreement with the Commonwealth. Jones argued on appeal that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to credibility concerns with Alexander's testimony. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the jury was fully informed of the witness's potential biases and inconsistencies, and credibility determinations are for the jury to resolve.

criminal law

This case involved Brian Bradley Giles's appeal from his jury convictions for first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the death of his wife, Nancy Giles, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Giles challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and argued that the trial court erred by admitting unduly prejudicial evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b) and by allowing unauthenticated social media posts. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, finding that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of Giles's guilt, including witness testimony, forensic findings of blunt force trauma consistent with homicide, and circumstantial evidence linking Giles to the crime scene and the victim's disappearance. The court also held that the social media evidence was properly authenticated through contextual clues such as matching personal details, profile content, and timing relative to the victim's disappearance, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Brian Julian Marchini, who was convicted in Montgomery County of multiple counts of rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and related offenses based on sexual acts he committed against his daughter between 2000 and 2003 when she was five to seven years old. Marchini appealed his judgment of sentence, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of a Facebook message exchange with the victim under Pennsylvania's Rape Shield Law without first holding an in-camera hearing. The Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded the matter, holding that Marchini's proffer regarding the Facebook conversation was sufficient on its face to require an in-camera hearing to assess relevance and admissibility before determining whether a new trial was warranted or the original sentence could stand.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Devon Tounkara appealed his convictions in Philadelphia County on charges including rape by forcible compulsion, sexual assault, strangulation, and related offenses, stemming from an alleged assault on T.P. in 2021. The trial court had granted the Commonwealth's motion in limine to admit the victim's out-of-court statements to police under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, after which Tounkara was convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to 8½ to 17 years' incarceration plus probation and sex offender registration. Tounkara argued on appeal that admission of the statements violated his rights under Crawford v. Washington, but the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. The court held that Tounkara waived the claim by conceding in his brief that the statements qualified as excited utterances and by raising the Crawford issue for the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement rather than preserving it at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Dr. Yuan, a physician, appealed from an order granting summary judgment to Positive Physicians Insurance Company in a dispute over the rescission of his medical malpractice insurance policy. The case stemmed from Dr. Yuan's failure to disclose on his 2020 and 2021 renewal applications that he had been charged with 36 criminal offenses and had his medical license suspended after performing liposuction surgery with an unlicensed assistant, despite questions and warranty statements in the applications requiring such information. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Dr. Yuan had a continuing duty to update his answers and that his nondisclosure amounted to material misrepresentations justifying rescission of the policy.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved Calm Properties LLC suing Azure Edge for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to an agreement for the sale of a property. The trial court granted summary judgment to Calm Properties after Edge failed to respond to the motion or attend the hearing, awarding damages and ordering conveyance of the property. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that Edge had waived all claims by not raising any defenses in the trial court as required by procedural rules. The court noted that issues must be presented first in the lower court to be considered on appeal.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the appeal by W.C. (Father) from decrees in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County that involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his minor children, D.W.C. and S.M.C., in adoption proceedings initiated by the Erie County Office of Children and Youth. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the termination decrees. The court found that Father had failed to comply with his permanency plan goals, including addressing substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence issues, and had made no progress toward reunification while incarcerated following his conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. The Agency established by clear and convincing evidence that termination served the children's best interests by providing them with safety, permanency, and stability in their foster and kinship homes, outweighing any potential detriment from severing the parent-child relationship.

family law

Randall Douglas Brooks appealed the denial of his PCRA petition after convictions for attempted murder causing serious bodily injury and related charges arising from an incident in which he fired shots into a vehicle driven by Matthew Ross. The Superior Court determined that ex parte communications between the prosecutor and trial judge during the original trial, which concerned rulings on objections and other trial matters, amounted to structural error that violated due process and the right to a fair trial. Because the trial court failed to maintain a contemporaneous record of the communications, the court implied prejudice even without specific evidence of harm. The Superior Court reversed the PCRA order and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a guardian's petition to authorize a spend-down of an incapacitated person's assets, including establishing an annuity and gifting approximately $106,700 to the guardian herself, in order to qualify for Medical Assistance long-term care coverage and to pay attorney's fees. The Orphans' Court denied the petition after a hearing, and the Superior Court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the proposed plan would deplete the ward's resources to the point of indigence, leaving no funds for quality-of-life enhancements beyond the limited Medicaid personal needs allowance, in contrast to prior cases authorizing distributions only from substantial surplus estates. The court emphasized the guardian's duty to maintain resources for the ward's comfort and necessities rather than shifting primary support to the state.

healthcarefamily law

This case involves Keith Christopher Girvan's appeal from the dismissal of his Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition in Clarion County Court of Common Pleas. Girvan had been convicted in 2019 of offenses related to assaulting his parents and sought post-conviction relief after his direct appeals were unsuccessful. The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely without a hearing, and Girvan appealed that decision. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition did not meet any timeliness exceptions under the PCRA, including claims of newly discovered facts, and thus neither court had jurisdiction to consider the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Wesley Rivera's appeal from a June 2024 judgment of sentence imposed after a Gagnon II hearing found him in direct and technical violation of probation on prior drug convictions. Rivera had entered a guilty plea in 2019 to possession with intent to deliver marijuana and related offenses, received a county sentence with probation, was paroled early, and later faced new charges in Allegheny County including firearms offenses, leading to his resentencing to state prison terms. The Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court applied an outdated version of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771 that was amended by Act 44 effective June 11, 2024; the new statute applies to all defendants sentenced or resentenced on or after that date, making the trial court's use of the prior law an error requiring a new hearing under the updated provisions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Eugene Lewis's petition for specialized review of a trial court order denying his request for nominal bail under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 in a Lehigh County drug-related death prosecution. The Superior Court affirmed the denial, holding that Lewis had not been held in pretrial incarceration for more than 180 days on this case because time spent serving a sentence from a separate Northampton County conviction does not count toward the Rule 600 limit. The court reasoned that the 180-day clock under Rule 600(B)(1) begins only when the defendant is actually incarcerated pretrial on the instant charges, which here started after Lewis completed his prior sentence on July 16, 2025, and that delays caused by the defendant are excluded from the computation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Lawrence L. Walker from an Orphans’ Court decree that denied his objections to an auditor’s report, approved the report, and surcharged him $64,021.49 for his actions as emergency guardian of his father’s estate. The court had previously remanded the matter to allow Walker to file exceptions after improper notice of the auditor’s report. Walker argued that the auditor failed to properly apply burdens of proof, that annuity proceeds were not part of the probate estate, that savings account withdrawals paid legitimate debts, and that vehicle sales were appropriate, but the Superior Court affirmed the surcharge because Walker provided no supporting evidence for his claims and bore the burden as fiduciary to justify the handling of estate assets.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involves Steven Northington's pro se appeal from the dismissal of his fifth PCRA petition in Philadelphia County, which challenged his 1970 first-degree murder conviction and life sentence. Northington argued actual innocence based on a new witness statement and ineffective assistance of counsel, including claims about an imposter attorney. The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's dismissal, holding that the petition filed in 2023 was facially untimely under the PCRA's one-year filing requirement from the date the judgment became final. The court reasoned that resentencing in 2017 did not restart the clock for timeliness purposes, and Northington failed to plead or prove any exception such as newly discovered facts that could not have been ascertained earlier with due diligence, as the witness information was available decades prior.

criminal lawprocedure