Com. v. Mucci, R.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-06-24
This case involves Robert Franklin Mucci's appeal from a December 28, 2018, trial court order denying his petition challenging the retroactive application of sex offender registration requirements under SORNA following his 2011 guilty pleas to aggravated indecent assault and related charges, for which he was designated a sexually violent predator. Mucci did not file a timely notice of appeal from that final order but instead pursued reconsideration and other post-decision motions, leading to a later appeal filed in August 2020. The Superior Court quashed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed well beyond the 30-day deadline under Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) and subsequent proceedings were a nullity. The court noted that while challenges to registration might not be subject to PCRA time bars under recent precedent, the untimeliness of this appeal was dispositive.
criminal lawprocedure
Belfiore, J. v. Truck Technology Training
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-06-24
The case involved appellant John Belfiore's 2008 civil complaint against Truck Technology Training, Inc. and Stephen Krizan alleging breach of an oral agreement for the purchase of the business and seeking an accounting after Belfiore was allegedly locked out. After years of limited docket activity, the trial court sua sponte terminated the action for inactivity under Pa.R.J.A. 1901. The Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by failing to apply the required three-part test for dismissal due to inactivity, specifically by not addressing whether the delay caused actual prejudice to the defendants as established in precedents like Jacobs and Shope. The court noted that the first two prongs (lack of diligence and no compelling reason for delay) were conceded, but prejudice must still be evaluated before termination.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Com. v. Stoffa, D.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-06-16
This case involves Daniel Eugene Stoffa's appeal from the denial of his Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition following his convictions for multiple counts of rape against three minor victims over several years. Stoffa claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including failure to call character or alibi witnesses, inadequate meetings with the client, and not striking a potentially biased juror during voir dire. The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order denying relief, holding that Stoffa failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's actions given the substantial evidence of guilt presented at trial, including victim testimony, medical evidence, and a coworker's account of Stoffa's incriminating statements. The court further noted that some proposed witness testimony would have contradicted Stoffa's own trial admissions, undermining any potential benefit. The decision focused on the PCRA's jurisdictional handling and the lack of merit in the ineffectiveness claims under established legal standards.
criminal lawprocedure
Com. v. Brennan, G.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-06-11
This case involved Glenn Brennan's appeal from the denial of his PCRA petition challenging his guilty plea and sentence for multiple counts of robbery, conspiracy, theft, and related offenses stemming from a series of commercial robberies in early 2015. After pleading guilty, Brennan received an aggregate sentence of 16.5 to 33 years in prison plus probation; his direct appeal on sentencing grounds was unsuccessful. In the PCRA proceeding, he claimed plea counsel was ineffective for advising against pursuing suppression of his police statement on Miranda grounds, but the PCRA court found counsel's assessment competent given the strength of the evidence and determined the plea was knowing and voluntary. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing there were no meritorious issues, and granted counsel's petition to withdraw under Turner/Finley.
criminal lawprocedure
Com. v. Collins, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-06-11
The case concerned Aaron Collins's appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss remaining criminal charges on double jeopardy grounds. After a jury acquitted Collins of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse Forcible Compulsion on both incidents and of Indecent Assault and Sexual Assault on the first incident but deadlocked on those two charges for the second incident, the trial court declared a mistrial on the unresolved counts. The Superior Court affirmed the denial of dismissal, explaining that the elements of the remaining charges are not identical to the acquitted ones because Sexual Assault and Indecent Assault require only lack of consent rather than forcible compulsion, so collateral estoppel did not bar retrial. The court further noted that an acquittal on the forcible-compulsion counts did not necessarily resolve whether non-consensual intercourse occurred.
criminal lawprocedure
Com. v. Lippincott, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-06-08
The case involves two criminal appeals by Jason Allen Lippincott from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The court considered an application for reargument of a prior panel decision filed on June 8, 2021. It granted en banc reargument, withdrew the earlier decision, and directed the case to the next available en banc panel. The order set a schedule requiring the appellant to file an original and supplemental or substituted brief by September 7, 2021, with the Commonwealth to respond within twenty-one days and the appellant permitted a reply brief thereafter.
criminal lawprocedure