Com. v. Cheatom, M.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-15
This case involves a criminal defendant's challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, including a firearm, obtained after a police sergeant responded to a burglary call at the defendant's home, received consent to search for intruders, and then opened a chalky pill bottle whose contents were not immediately identifiable, viewed pills inside, and used that along with an open notebook to obtain a search warrant. The dissenting judge would reverse the suppression ruling and remand for proceedings without the evidence or its fruits. The core reasoning is that the plain view doctrine did not justify opening the bottle because its contents were not readily apparent to the officer, prior case law establishes that pill bottles alone are not contraband and further investigation was needed, the officer's conclusions about the notebook came only after the unlawful opening, and the limited consent to search for burglars did not extend to examining the bottle.
criminal lawprocedure
Freundlich & Litman, LLC v. Feierstein, E.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-14
This case involved an appeal by attorney Bruce Chasan and his law firm from a trial court order denying reconsideration of a bench order in an abuse of process lawsuit filed against them by opposing counsel Gregory Littman and his firm. The underlying dispute arose from a counterclaim Chasan filed on behalf of a client in a prior negligence action between condominium owners, which Littman alleged was baseless and pursued maliciously. The trial court had dismissed the abuse of process complaint on grounds of judicial immunity. The Superior Court quashed the appeal, holding that the order denying reconsideration was neither a final order nor an appealable collateral order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313, as the issues did not involve rights important enough to warrant immediate review and would not be irreparably lost if review were deferred until final judgment.
proceduretorts & liability
Com. v. Duck, N.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-10
Nathaniel Duck pled guilty in 2013 to rape and related offenses against his daughter and was sentenced to five to twenty years in prison. He filed a second PCRA petition in 2020 alleging newly discovered facts about prior counsel's ineffectiveness, which the PCRA court denied without a hearing. Duck appealed the denial more than 30 days later, and the Superior Court determined the appeal was untimely with no applicable exception for court breakdown or fraud. The court further held that Duck failed to plead and prove the newly-discovered facts exception to the PCRA's one-year filing deadline. The Superior Court therefore affirmed the order denying the petition.
criminal lawprocedure
Fekety, M. v. Fekety, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-09
This case involves a divorce proceeding between Melinda Fekety (Wife) and John Fekety (Husband), who were married in 1968 and separated in 2018. Wife filed for divorce and requested equitable distribution of marital property, including a marital residence, a Florida property, and two properties inherited by Husband. After hearings on various petitions regarding possession and appraisals, the trial court conducted an equitable distribution hearing and issued an order dividing the assets, which was finalized by a divorce decree. Husband appealed, raising claims about the evaluation of statutory factors, his health and needs, and the potential need for a forced sale of property to satisfy the distribution. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order, finding Husband's arguments either waived for lack of development or without merit based on the trial court's reasoning that Husband was granted the real properties he requested and that a forced sale would impose unnecessary tax and cost burdens.
family lawproperty
Com. v. Johnson, B.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-08
This case involved Brian Scott Johnson, an inmate at McKean County Jail, who was convicted of summary criminal mischief after surveillance video and testimony showed him activating the sprinkler in his cell on two consecutive days in January 2020, causing water damage. Johnson appealed his judgment of sentence, challenging the verdict as against the weight of the evidence based on his testimony that any activation was accidental or not caused by him. On remand from a prior appeal, the Superior Court reviewed the trial court's denial of the weight claim and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the evidence—including video footage, witness testimony, and Johnson's partial admission—supported the verdict and did not shock the sense of justice. The court relied on established standards for weight-of-the-evidence review, which defer to the trial court's credibility determinations unless palpably erroneous.
criminal law
Com. v. Miller, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-07
This case involved Jeremy A. Miller's appeal from his judgment of sentence after pleading guilty to two counts each of rape of a child and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, plus one count of endangering the welfare of a child, for sexually abusing a six-to-seven-year-old victim over an extended period. Miller challenged only his classification as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24, arguing the evidence was insufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that he had a mental abnormality making him likely to reoffend. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth's expert from the Sexual Offender Assessment Board sufficiently analyzed the statutory factors, diagnosed Miller with incurable Pedophilic Disorder, and established that his conduct was predatory, supporting the trial court's SVP finding.
criminal law