Jacqueline O. Shogan

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involves Tyre Gamble's appeal from the dismissal of his Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition challenging his 2005 convictions for first-degree murder, witness intimidation, and possessing instruments of crime arising from a 2004 shooting in Philadelphia. The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order dismissing the petition without a hearing. The court reasoned that Gamble's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including challenges to the admission of certain hearsay statements by a witness, lacked merit because even if counsel had objected, there was no prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of guilt from multiple eyewitnesses and other testimony. The decision focused on the PCRA standards requiring both deficient performance and actual prejudice to obtain relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Jerrae Colbert's appeal from his judgment of sentence after a jury convicted him of two counts each of indecent assault of a person under 13, endangering the welfare of children, and corruption of minors, based on allegations that he touched two young children inappropriately over their clothing while supervising them. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of seven to fourteen years of incarceration followed by fifteen years of probation. On appeal, Colbert challenged the sentence as excessive, arguing the trial court failed to adequately consider his rehabilitation needs, mitigating factors, and the nature of the offenses under Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it reviewed a presentence investigation report, balanced mitigating and aggravating factors on the record, and addressed rehabilitation and public protection.

criminal law

This case is Sean Kratz's appeal from his judgment of sentence after convictions for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter of two victims, conspiracy to commit murder and robbery, abuse of corpses, and related offenses stemming from the 2017 killings of three young men. Following the Commonwealth's decision not to pursue the death penalty, the trial court imposed life without parole plus consecutive sentences totaling over fifteen years. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that multiple appellate claims concerning the voluntariness of the defendant's statements, Miranda compliance, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments were waived because they were not properly preserved at trial or specifically identified in the Rule 1925(b) statement. The court found the remaining preserved issues lacked merit after reviewing the record of the interrogation and trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Louis Wenzel, who was convicted by a jury of resisting arrest or other law enforcement after an October 2018 incident in which he allegedly refused to comply with officers serving an arrest warrant, leading to the use of force. Following his November 2019 sentence of intermediate punishment including incarceration and house arrest, Wenzel filed post-sentence motions alleging a Brady discovery violation related to an internal police investigation and seeking to compel testimony from a state police corporal. The trial court denied the motions, and on appeal the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. The court held that the appeal was timely but found no error in denying relief on the discovery claim or in refusing to compel the witness, as the appellant had failed to provide proof of service of the subpoena as required. The decision relied on precedent requiring such proof before a court can enforce a subpoena or issue a bench warrant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death and survival action brought by the executrix of Linda Shifflett's estate against York Hospital, alleging corporate negligence in the supervision of cardiologists who delayed performing a cardiac catheterization after Shifflett was transferred for treatment of a heart condition, leading to her death. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the hospital, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's post-trial motions for JNOV and a new trial. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or other pretrial decisions, and that the evidence supported the defense verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved Joshua Headley, who was convicted after a stipulated facts trial of discharging a firearm into an occupied structure and recklessly endangering another person. Headley had fired a gun inside his apartment during an argument, causing the bullet to pass through the floor into the apartment below where 91-year-old Marie Ilg was sitting. On appeal, Headley challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the two apartments did not constitute separate occupied structures under the statute. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions, reasoning that under the statutory definition and prior precedent, separately secured apartments within the same building are distinct occupied structures, and the evidence showed Headley fired into Ilg's apartment, recklessly endangering her.

criminal lawguns

This case involved appeals by six minor children, through their guardian ad litem, from orders of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas terminating court supervision over their dependency cases. The children had been adjudicated dependent due to issues including lack of supervision, hygiene, and unsanitary home conditions, with the parents retaining custody under a permanency plan. After the parents absconded with the children in an RV, violating court orders, CYF and the CASA sought to close the cases following unsuccessful efforts to locate the family. The Superior Court affirmed the termination orders, reasoning that the juvenile court's findings were supported by the record and that attempts to enforce further custody measures would cause undue trauma to the children, contrary to the goals of dependency proceedings.

family law

The case involved Frank Nellom's pro se appeal from his conviction for theft of services after PECO employees discovered a tampered electric meter at a property where he resided and operated a business, resulting in unpaid services valued at over $3,000. The jury found Nellom guilty and determined that the value of the stolen services exceeded $50, leading to a sentence graded as a third-degree felony with 21-42 months of incarceration, probation, and restitution. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of theft, but vacated the judgment of sentence because the jury was not asked to determine whether the value exceeded $200 or $2,000 as required to elevate the offense grade under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3903, consistent with Apprendi v. New Jersey. The court remanded for resentencing on the offense as a second-degree misdemeanor. The core reasoning centered on the constitutional requirement that any fact increasing the maximum penalty must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the appeal of a minor, D.P., from a dispositional order in a juvenile delinquency proceeding in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. D.P. was adjudicated delinquent for indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years old, graded as a third-degree felony, based on an incident with his nine-year-old cousin and evidence of prior similar acts. The court affirmed the adjudication and disposition, reasoning that the victim's testimony established a course of conduct sufficient to support the felony grading under the relevant statute, despite the absence of explicit reference to the course-of-conduct provision in the charging documents or at the hearing.

criminal lawfamily law

In this case, defendant Calvin Stewart Alston, charged with criminal homicide and related firearm offenses, had the public defender's office issue a subpoena duces tecum to the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's Office for an autopsy report and related materials ahead of his preliminary hearing. The trial court granted the district attorney's motion to quash the subpoena and entered a blanket order prohibiting the public defender from issuing any such subpoenas to the medical examiner in criminal cases before the formal discovery period under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573, absent a prior showing of reasonableness. On interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that while discovery is generally unavailable before the preliminary hearing and a reasonableness showing may be required, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the prohibition as a blanket rule without a hearing or opportunity for the defense to respond, contrary to Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(E). The court noted tension between Rules 107 and 573 but found 573 controlling and declined to reach equal-protection claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a mother's appeal from decrees involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her two minor daughters, who had been in agency placement since 2017 after a methamphetamine lab was found in her home and she was incarcerated on related drug convictions. The agency petitioned for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b); at an initial hearing the mother executed a voluntary relinquishment of rights, but the orphans' court later learned the consent was conditioned on a post-adoption contact agreement with the prospective adoptive parents. Upon rehearing, the court determined the voluntary consent was invalid because it was not unconditional, proceeded on the involuntary termination petitions, and granted the decrees. The Superior Court affirmed, concluding that the mother's relinquishment did not meet the requirements for voluntary consent under the Adoption Act and that the orphans' court did not abuse its discretion by moving forward with involuntary termination.

family law

This case involved an appeal by Dameon Lydell Bumbarger from his convictions for possession with intent to deliver and persons not to possess a firearm, following a stipulated nonjury trial. The convictions stemmed from a 2018 traffic stop in Centre County, Pennsylvania, during which a trooper, acting on an out-of-state arrest warrant and observations of the driver, stopped the vehicle, detained the appellant, and discovered drug paraphernalia in plain view, leading to a vehicle search that uncovered methamphetamine, marijuana, and two firearms. The appellant challenged the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop and search lacked proper justification. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the stop was supported by the warrant and vehicle registration, the plain-view observation of unsecured syringes provided probable cause for the subsequent search, and the firearms were lawfully seized under the plain-view doctrine.

criminal lawprocedure

Homeowners Jeffrey and Lee Ann Wenk sued their insurer State Farm and remediation contractor FireDEX after gasoline contamination from a prior contractor's work led to disputed repairs on their Allegheny County home, asserting claims including breach of contract, bad faith, violations of the UTPCPL, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the bad faith and UTPCPL claims but awarded the Wenks $70,000 in damages against State Farm and/or FireDEX. On cross-appeals, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissals but vacated the damages judgment, holding that the trial court should have examined whether the award duplicated recovery from the Wenks' separate settlement in a related lawsuit against the original contractor (D&R Equipment). The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine any appropriate setoff based on the injuries claimed and amounts recovered in each case.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Brandon Cole Beatty's appeal from his conviction and sentence for criminal conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to deliver, arising from a drug transaction that resulted in a fatal fentanyl overdose, though he was acquitted of the related charge of drug delivery resulting in death. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court reasoned that while the trial court provided reasons for the sentence, it failed to state on the record that it was sentencing outside the guidelines or provide a contemporaneous explanation for the deviation as required by the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).

criminal lawprocedure