Judith Ference Olson

This case involved Robert Edward Zagata's appeal from the dismissal of his second petition under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel related to his convictions for stalking, terroristic threats, and harassment. The Superior Court granted counsel's petition to withdraw under Anders procedures and affirmed the PCRA court's order. The court reasoned that the petition was untimely filed more than one year after the judgment of sentence became final, without any pleaded exception to the PCRA's jurisdictional time bar, and that claims of counsel ineffectiveness do not overcome that bar; the court also noted the petition was a subsequent one requiring a showing of miscarriage of justice that was not made. The underlying convictions stemmed from the appellant's post-discharge conduct toward a staff member at a rehabilitation facility.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a homeowner suing a building company for alleged defects in the construction of a residence, initially filing claims that evolved through multiple amended complaints to focus on negligence while also referencing contractual obligations. The trial court sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint under the gist of the action doctrine, determining that the claims sounded only in contract rather than tort. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated that dismissal order, holding that the pleadings adequately set forth both breach of contract and negligence causes of action, making the doctrine inapplicable to bar the tort claim. The court remanded the matter for further proceedings, while noting the plaintiff's need to comply with rules requiring separate counts for each cause of action and suggesting allowance of one further amendment.

torts & liabilityprocedureproperty

The case involved Joseph D. Jay, who was convicted after a bench trial of neglect of an animal by failing to provide adequate shelter and protection, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5532(a)(2). The trial court sentenced him to 45 to 90 days of incarceration and forfeiture of the dog. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient because the dog's shelter—a 10x10 canopy without sides, with wet blankets—did not allow the animal to retain body heat or stay dry in cold Pittsburgh winter temperatures, as required by the plain language of the statute.

criminal law

The case involved Anthony Aaron Monroe's pro se appeal from the dismissal of his first PCRA petition after he pleaded guilty to persons not to possess a firearm in exchange for a negotiated sentence of five to ten years' incarceration. The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order, concluding that Monroe's claims—including entrapment by an undercover officer, failure to explain the elements of the offense, ineffective assistance of counsel, an illegal sentence, and constitutional challenges to the firearm prohibition under Bruen and Range—lacked merit. The court reasoned that the guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, that Section 6105 remains constitutional as applied to defendants with prior felony convictions, and that counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involved appellant Teron C. Williams's pro se appeal from a trial court order denying his motion to waive over $2,500 in fines and costs stemming from a 2002 Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for driving under the influence and a 2014 guilty plea to driving under suspension and drug-related offenses. The Superior Court affirmed the denial, adopting the trial court's opinion. The core reasoning was that Pa.R.Crim.P. 706 does not require an ability-to-pay hearing unless the defendant faces imprisonment for nonpayment, which was not at issue here, and that courts lack authority to waive mandatory fines or costs entirely, though installment plans may be adjusted upon proper request.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, appellant Teron Christopher Williams, proceeding pro se, challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to waive over $2,500 in fines and costs stemming from a 2002 DUI matter resolved through the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program and a 2014 guilty plea to driving under suspension and drug-related offenses. Williams claimed indigency due to disability, reliance on Social Security Income and Medicaid, and lack of employment prospects. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's October 10, 2025 order, adopting the lower court's opinion and reasoning that the denial was appropriate under the circumstances. The court found no abuse of discretion in rejecting the waiver request despite the evidence presented of financial hardship.

criminal law

The case involved Derran Anderson appealing from a judgment of sentence imposed after his probation was revoked due to new convictions for firearm offenses. Anderson challenged the discretionary aspects of his revocation sentence, arguing that the trial court failed to consider required statutory factors under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771 and failed to adequately state reasons for the sentence or consider alternatives to incarceration. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Anderson waived any challenge to the revocation itself and failed to invoke the court's jurisdiction over discretionary sentencing issues by omitting a required Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief, to which the Commonwealth objected.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the appeal of Brady Christian Pysadee from his convictions for drug delivery resulting in death, involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, and possession with intent to deliver narcotics after a woman died from ingesting fentanyl he supplied. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence. The court determined that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay statements made by the victim prior to her death regarding the source and effects of the drugs, but concluded that this error was harmless because other substantial evidence, including text messages, video surveillance, witness accounts of the victim's condition, and toxicology reports confirming a lethal fentanyl level, supported the jury's findings of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

The case involved Marissa Garnet Dilley appealing her non-jury convictions for DUI general impairment (first offense) and multiple summary motor vehicle violations after a single-vehicle accident. Police responded to the crash scene where Dilley was the sole occupant found in the driver's seat of a vehicle registered to her, exhibited signs of intoxication such as bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol, and refused field sobriety tests. The trial court sentenced her to three to six months' incarceration with immediate parole and an aggregate fine of $1,500. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dilley was in actual physical control of the vehicle while incapable of safe driving due to alcohol consumption.

criminal law

The case involved Jeremiah Bowens appealing his convictions and sentence from Chester County Court for multiple counts of possession with intent to deliver controlled substances, conspiracy, and criminal use of a communication device. These stemmed from controlled buys of methamphetamine and other drugs that were supplied from Philadelphia but distributed in Chester County. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, finding that venue was proper in Chester County due to the connection to drug distribution there, and that the 15-30 year sentence was within guidelines and appropriately considered factors like offense gravity and public protection.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Simeon Robinson suing Best Buy in Town, Inc. and several individuals for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract arising from his 2021 vehicle purchase. After Robinson lost following a December 2024 bench trial, he did not file post-trial motions or a timely appeal but instead sought leave to appeal nunc pro tunc in September 2025; the trial court denied that motion. The Superior Court quashed Robinson's appeal from the denial order, holding that the underlying verdict was not a final, appealable order because judgment had never been entered on the docket. The court explained that its jurisdiction extends only to final orders and that the absence of an entered judgment made the appealed order interlocutory and unappealable.

procedure

The case involved Tyree Dumas's pro se appeal from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. Dumas, who was serving a 7-to-14-year Pennsylvania sentence for sexual offenses, challenged two Florida detainers lodged against him based on extradition warrants for probation violations, arguing that they violated time limits under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9136 and 9138) since more than 30 days had passed. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the UCEA's detention time limits do not apply to an individual already serving a lengthy state prison sentence, as the detainers impose no additional restraint on liberty beyond the existing incarceration. The court reasoned that habeas relief was unavailable where the petition disclosed no grounds for relief and distinguished prior precedent requiring hearings for in-custody accused persons not yet serving sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Monte Singleton's appeal from a trial court order denying his petition for review of the district attorney's disapproval of his private criminal complaint. Singleton sought to charge the original complainant with filing false reports to law enforcement after his own criminal charges—stemming from an alleged road rage incident at a school—were nolle prossed due to concerns over the identification. The Superior Court affirmed the denial, holding that under the standard set forth in In re Ajaj, a court may overturn a prosecutor's disapproval only upon a showing of bad faith, fraud, or unconstitutionality, and Singleton failed to present any evidence meeting that threshold. The court reviewed the record de novo and found that Singleton's arguments focused on the prior charges rather than demonstrating impropriety in the DA's specific decision.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Jay Thomas appealing his convictions for three firearms-related offenses following a bench trial in Philadelphia County. The charges stemmed from an incident where police observed him fleeing a vehicle and discarding a firearm during a pursuit. Thomas argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed the recovered gun and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to inconclusive DNA results. The Superior Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the officer's testimony and body camera footage provided sufficient evidence of possession and that the trial court's credibility determinations were not an abuse of discretion.

criminal lawguns

This case involves a mortgage foreclosure action brought by ACNB Bank against Seneca Leandro View, LLC and Jeffrey V. Ebersole after a 2019 tax upset sale transferred the mortgaged property to the LLC without the bank's consent, triggering a due-on-sale clause in the 2016 mortgage. The bank declared the full loan amount immediately due and sought foreclosure, but the LLC contested the action on grounds including lack of required notice under Act 6. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank. The Superior Court vacated that order and remanded, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the property qualified as a residential mortgage under Act 6, entitling the LLC to pre-foreclosure notice that was not provided.

propertyprocedure

This case involves Tyrone Dixon's medical malpractice lawsuit against Heritage Valley Sewickley, where the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds and the trial court denied the motion in an interlocutory order. The defendant sought permission to appeal and the Superior Court sua sponte treated the filing as a notice of appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The dissenting opinion concludes that the appeal must be quashed for lack of jurisdiction because the order fails the collateral order doctrine's irreparable loss prong under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent decision in Chilutti v. Uber Technologies, which narrowed that exception and rejected arguments based on potential litigation costs. The dissent further reasons that the court cannot revive the dismissed petition for permission to appeal or otherwise confer jurisdiction over the non-final order.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved John Robert Curtis, who pleaded guilty in 2011 to retail theft and conspiracy to commit retail theft after stealing video games from a Walmart store in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 28 months to 14 years' incarceration, along with restitution of $3,777.36 and a ban from Walmart property, based on the offense gravity score, the defendant's prior record score, and a presentence investigation report. After extensive procedural history including a delayed PCRA petition and a prior Superior Court remand, Curtis filed a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of the consecutive sentences as excessive. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in considering the relevant sentencing factors under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) and was not required to impose concurrent sentences.

criminal law

This case involved the appeal of David Balosa from his judgment of sentence following a conviction for sexually assaulting a six-year-old child in 1998 while he was a houseguest in her family's home. The appellant argued that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence because he had presented substantial good character evidence at trial. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the weight-of-the-evidence claim. The court reasoned that the jury had considered all competing evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the appellant's character evidence, found the complainant credible, and reached a verdict that was not so contrary to the evidence as to shock the conscience or deny justice.

criminal law

This case involves a child custody dispute between Scott Shepard (Father) and Agnieszka Shepard (Mother) regarding their two biological children. Father appealed the trial court's final custody order that awarded shared legal and physical custody to both parents and denied his request to relocate the children to Michigan. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order, reasoning that the trial court properly considered the best interests of the children through a comprehensive review of relevant factors, and that any procedural delays did not warrant vacating the order as no such remedy exists under the rules and the children's best interests are paramount.

family law

This case involved a homeowner who sued a company and related entities over deficiencies in a residential water management system installed in 2018, asserting claims for violations of the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims. The Superior Court affirmed dismissal of the consumer protection claims because the plaintiff neither supported the specific statutory violations pled in the complaint nor could raise new liability theories at the summary judgment stage, and it upheld the statute of limitations bar on the contract, warranty, and related claims; however, the court reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim as not time-barred and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure