John L. Musmanno

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved Robert Alfred Petrill appealing his judgment of sentence after entering a negotiated guilty plea to eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of corruption of minors stemming from reported sexual contact with two minors. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's denial of Petrill's post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea. The court reasoned that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent based on the written guilty plea petition, the oral colloquy in which Petrill confirmed his understanding and rights, his statements that the plea was in his best interest and uninduced by threats, and his denial of any impairing effects from medication.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Richard Wesley Mudge appealed the trial court's denial of his petition to enforce a plea agreement after he entered a nolo contendere plea in 2012 to charges including simple assault and indecent assault, resulting in probation, intermediate punishment, and sex offender registration and treatment conditions. Mudge argued that the nolo contendere plea meant he did not admit guilt and that requiring him to participate in sex offender treatment, which involves admissions of guilt, violated the terms of his plea agreement. The Superior Court affirmed the denial, holding that the special conditions including sex offender treatment were express terms of the plea agreement that Mudge had accepted on the record, and that any challenges to the legality of the sentence or the voluntariness of the plea must be raised through a timely PCRA petition rather than this enforcement petition. The court found no support in the record for Mudge's claim that the agreement exempted him from the treatment requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Bruce Wishnefsky suing a law firm for unpaid forwarding fees from cases he referred under a 1993 agreement, after he had filed multiple prior unsuccessful actions on the same dispute. The trial court sustained the law firm's preliminary objections to the fourth amended complaint, which raised claims for unjust enrichment and restitution, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that res judicata barred the claims because Wishnefsky had a prior full and fair opportunity to litigate them and that unjust enrichment must be pled in the alternative to breach of contract.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Klayton Massie appealed his judgments of sentence after pleading guilty to third-degree murder, criminal mischief, unlawful restraint, and possession of an instrument of crime, stemming from his fatal beating of his roommate during a confrontation involving his girlfriend. The trial court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 20 to 40 years in prison for third-degree murder, with concurrent probation terms running consecutively. Massie argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence without properly considering all required sentencing factors under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). The Superior Court affirmed the judgments of sentence, concluding that the trial court had reviewed the presentence investigation report and appropriately weighed the brutality of the offense against any mitigating factors.

criminal law

This case involved Brian Scott Johnson, an inmate at McKean County Jail, who was convicted of summary criminal mischief after being accused of damaging the sprinkler head in his cell on two consecutive days in January 2020. The trial court found him guilty based on surveillance video, testimony from jail officials and a state trooper, and Johnson's own statements, then sentenced him to a short prison term followed by probation. On appeal, Johnson challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing lack of intent and possible accidental activation, and the weight of the evidence. The Superior Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, but remanded the case because the trial court had failed to address the weight claim in its rulings or opinion. The panel retained jurisdiction pending the trial court's supplemental opinion on the weight issue.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves multiple consolidated appeals by Brandon Lee Humphrey from the denial of his PCRA petitions challenging sentences imposed after guilty pleas in Allegheny County criminal cases, including a conviction for carrying a firearm without a license. Humphrey claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to adequately argue mitigating factors such as his acceptance of responsibility, drug addiction, and mental health issues, and asserted that the sentences were excessive. The Superior Court reviewed the record and found that the trial court had considered Humphrey's personal circumstances and rehabilitative needs at sentencing, imposed a sentence below the guidelines range in the primary case with all others running concurrently, and proceeded without a presentence report at Humphrey's request. Because the underlying sentencing challenge lacked arguable merit, the court concluded there was no ineffective assistance and affirmed the PCRA orders denying relief.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff's repeated attempts to recover alleged forwarding fees from a law firm for cases referred in the 1990s under an oral agreement, framed as claims for unjust enrichment and restitution after earlier breach-of-contract suits failed. The trial court sustained the defendant's preliminary objections and dismissed the fourth amended complaint with prejudice. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that res judicata barred the action because prior actions between the same parties on the same fee dispute had been finally resolved on the merits after full litigation through the appellate courts. The court also rejected the plaintiff's procedural challenges regarding the timing of rulings on preliminary objections.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Jose Luis Rodriguez, who was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of rape by forcible compulsion, one count of indecent assault by forcible compulsion, and one count of false imprisonment, based on a 2016 incident reported by the complainant that was later linked to Rodriguez via DNA evidence. Rodriguez appealed his December 2020 judgment of sentence, raising issues including a violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 for failure to bring him to trial within 365 days of the May 2018 complaint filing. The Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and reversed the conviction, holding that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence in locating and serving Rodriguez while he was incarcerated in New Jersey and later in Pennsylvania state prison, making certain pre-trial delays attributable to the Commonwealth. As a result, the court found a Rule 600 violation and discharged Rodriguez without addressing his other claims regarding evidentiary rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved A.P.'s appeal from a trial court order affirming certification for continued involuntary mental health treatment at a state hospital under sections 301 and 305 of Pennsylvania's Mental Health Procedures Act, following his criminal charges and findings of incompetence. The court decided to affirm the order, upholding an additional period of up to 180 days of involuntary treatment. The core reasoning was that the hospital presented sufficient evidence, including psychiatrist testimony about A.P.'s history of medication non-compliance leading to psychotic and disorganized behavior, to establish a clear danger to himself or others without continued treatment.

healthcare

This case involves Gregory Bradshaw's appeal from a divorce decree that finalized an equitable distribution order dividing the marital assets of him and Genevieve Bradshaw after their 1989 marriage and 2018 separation. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's decision, which largely adopted the master's recommendations on asset valuation and division, including properties, vehicles, pensions, and other items. The core reasoning was that the master properly evaluated all statutory factors under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502, such as the parties' incomes, health issues, contributions to the marriage, future earning potential, and separate assets, with no abuse of discretion found in the 57% award to Wife or specific valuations. The court rejected Husband's challenges regarding pension allocation and other asset values as unsupported by the record.

family lawproperty

This case involved a contract dispute between two IT consulting firms, Vinculum and Goli Technologies. The parties had entered into a consulting and non-competition agreement under which Goli agreed not to solicit or work directly for Vinculum's client (PennDOT) for one year after termination. After Goli breached the agreement by working directly for PennDOT, Vinculum withheld unpaid wages and sued for breach, while Goli counterclaimed for the withheld wages. Following a bench trial, the trial court found the agreement enforceable, awarded Vinculum $32,145 in damages for the breach, and awarded Goli $42,525 on its counterclaim, resulting in a net judgment of $10,380 to Goli; the court denied requests for injunctive relief, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the contract terms and applicable law supported the trial court's calculations and discretionary decisions on remedies.

business & regulatory

In this case, Arhawn Jones was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license after Pittsburgh police officers observed a bulge in his pocket, approached him on the street, learned he was 18 years old, and seized the weapon. Jones moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and that the encounter amounted to an unlawful seizure. The trial court denied suppression, and following a stipulated bench trial, Jones was convicted and sentenced to probation. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the initial interaction was a mere encounter that did not require suspicion and that the officers developed reasonable suspicion upon learning Jones's age, which made possession unlawful.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

In this case, Arhawn Jones was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license after Pittsburgh police officers observed a bulge in his pocket, approached him on the street, learned he was 18 years old, and seized the weapon. Jones moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and that the encounter amounted to an unlawful seizure. The trial court denied suppression, and following a stipulated bench trial, Jones was convicted and sentenced to probation. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the initial interaction was a mere encounter that did not require suspicion and that the officers developed reasonable suspicion upon learning Jones's age, which made possession unlawful.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Christopher Anthony Taylor's appeal from the denial of his PCRA petition challenging his 2013 convictions for statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and corruption of minors, all stemming from a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old victim he met through a fire company. Taylor argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain evidence, seek a rape shield motion, challenge testimony and documents, object to closing arguments, and request a missing witness instruction, among other claims. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the PCRA court's order denying relief, concluding that most claims lacked arguable merit and that Taylor failed to demonstrate prejudice from the single claim that had arguable merit or to show cumulative prejudice from multiple claims. The court noted that Taylor had previously received a resentencing on direct appeal but that his convictions remained intact.

criminal lawprocedure