Victor P. Stabile

The case involved the Commonwealth's appeal from a trial court order granting defendant Aderly Dominguez Alvarez's habeas corpus motion and quashing a charge of receiving stolen property. The defendant had been stopped while towing a truck reported stolen two weeks earlier; his employer had instructed him to tell police a false story about the truck's origin, but the defendant only learned of inconsistencies in that story during the stop itself. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to present a prima facie case because it offered no evidence that the defendant knew or had reason to know the truck was stolen prior to or at the time of the stop, and mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to establish the required guilty knowledge element. The court reviewed the preliminary hearing record de novo and found no circumstantial evidence of the defendant's awareness of the theft.

criminal law

Darian Lucas appealed the dismissal of his fifth petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in a case stemming from a 1994 shooting incident that led to his 1995 conviction for first-degree murder and related charges, resulting in a life sentence. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the lower court's order dismissing the petition as untimely. The court reasoned that the petition, filed in 2025 and relying on a 2025 federal district court decision in Overby v. Wetzel concerning presumed prejudice in jury voir dire, did not meet the timeliness exception for newly recognized constitutional rights, as such exceptions require a retroactive ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and federal district court decisions are not binding on state courts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Jason Gonzalez's appeal from his convictions and sentence following a robbery at a Philadelphia corner store, during which he and a co-conspirator, both masked and armed, took cash from the register while one pointed a gun at the pregnant wife of the store owner. The Superior Court reversed the conviction for aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1), finding the evidence insufficient to establish the required elements, but affirmed the convictions for robbery, theft, and related offenses. The court also identified a clerical error in the conspiracy disposition and remanded for correction of that charge along with resentencing on the remaining convictions. The reasoning centered on the lack of proof for aggravated assault and the need to align the sentencing order with the trial court's intent or dismiss the unsupported conspiracy count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Joshua Xavier Barden's appeal from his judgment of sentence after pleading guilty to rape of a child involving his young niece, resulting in a sentence of 15 to 37 years of incarceration and designation as a sexually violent predator under SORNA. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the SVP finding, arguing that the expert witness improperly relied on allegations from dismissed charges and hearsay statements rather than solely on the facts of the pled offense, which he claimed violated due process. The Superior Court affirmed the sentence, holding that binding precedent permits experts in SVP hearings to consider a broader range of records and allegations to form their opinions, as these are not admitted for their truth but to explain the basis of the expert's assessment.

criminal law

The case involved Jay Westerfer's appeal from his conviction and sentence for driving under the influence of a controlled substance after a traffic stop in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Officer observations included the defendant's vehicle swerving and nearly stopping erratically, constricted pupils and bloodshot eyes without alcohol odor, and multiple failures on standardized field sobriety tests, leading to a blood test refusal. The trial court found him guilty following a bench trial, and the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth was sufficient to establish impairment by a drug rendering him incapable of safe driving, consistent with precedent that expert testimony is not required. The core reasoning centered on the officer's training, the observed indicia of impairment, and the rejection of arguments that lack of drug evidence or certain normal tests undermined sufficiency.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Khalil Warner's pro se appeal from the dismissal of his first PCRA petition challenging his 2023 guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault in Delaware County, for which he received a sentence of seven to twenty years in prison. Warner alleged ineffective assistance of plea counsel and an involuntary plea, but PCRA counsel filed a no-merit letter under Turner/Finley and sought to withdraw. The PCRA court dismissed the petition, yet Warner's pro se notice of appeal was filed late. The Superior Court excused the procedural defect, finding it resulted from a breakdown in court operations and deprivation of appellate counsel rights, as the orders did not clearly advise Warner of his right to appointed appellate counsel or confirm representation during the appeal period. The court remanded for the PCRA court to advise Warner of his appellate rights and determine whether he wants new counsel to pursue the PCRA claims or withdraw.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Khalil Sweet, who was charged with firearm offenses and recklessly endangering another person after police recovered a gun from him following a shootout; he pled guilty but preserved his right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss challenging the constitutionality of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106, 6108, and 6109 as applied to 18-20 year olds. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence of four years’ probation. The court held that the restrictions on carrying firearms by individuals in that age group are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation under the Second Amendment and do not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides no broader protections in this area.

gunscriminal law

This case involved an appeal by Papa M. Camara from the dismissal of his petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act challenging his guilty plea to charges including possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, and retail theft. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the PCRA court's order, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective. The court reasoned that counsel had advised the appellant, a non-U.S. citizen on a green card, of the possible deportation consequences of the plea, and the trial court's colloquy confirmed the appellant understood those risks, satisfying the requirements of Padilla v. Kentucky.

criminal lawimmigration

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by John and Linda Musika against multiple healthcare providers, including Dr. Jonas J. Gopez and Abington Memorial Hospital, alleging failures to timely diagnose John’s rare spinal tumor (chordoma) via MRI and CT scans and improper performance of biopsy and surgery that allegedly complicated later treatment and increased recurrence risk. The plaintiffs settled with or dismissed several defendants and proceeded to trial against the remaining ones, but the trial court excluded or limited certain expert testimony on the grounds that the proposed experts did not satisfy the MCARE Act’s requirements for comparable training and experience to the defendant physicians. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment entered against the plaintiffs, holding that they failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings or other decisions and that the experts’ qualifications were insufficiently related to the defendants’ fields under the statute.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether a constable could be cited under section 4571(d) of the Motor Vehicle Code for operating a vehicle equipped with flashing red and blue lights, which the statute restricts to emergency vehicles. The appellant, a constable on patrol, was stopped and cited after a state trooper observed the lights. The majority affirmed the judgment of sentence, concluding that constables do not fall within the MVC's definition of police officers or emergency vehicles. This dissenting opinion reasoned that constables possess statutory authority to make arrests for violations of law under 44 Pa.C.S.A. § 7158, satisfying the plain-language definition of police officer in section 102 of the MVC, and therefore their vehicles qualify as police vehicles authorized to use the lights.

criminal law

The case involved Robert Shawn Temple, who entered a nolo contendere plea to one count of indecent assault involving sexual contact with a minor victim between 2017 and 2019. In exchange, other charges were dismissed, and the Commonwealth agreed to remain silent at sentencing except for the victim's testimony. Temple was sentenced to imprisonment and probation and designated a sexually violent predator based on a Sexual Offenders Assessment Board report. On appeal, he challenged the plea's validity due to the victim's age, the absence of a separate SVP hearing, and the Commonwealth's calling of additional witnesses at sentencing. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, finding the plea valid, the SVP determination supported by the record, and the witness issue waived for lack of timely objection.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Kimberly Ann Roach-Trochak appealed her judgment of sentence for homicide by vehicle and related offenses after a single-vehicle crash that killed a passenger. She challenged the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress blood test results obtained at the hospital, arguing the consent was invalid. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the record supported the trial court's factual finding of voluntary consent based on the officer's testimony that the defendant was not in custody, handcuffed, or coerced when she agreed to the blood draw while conscious in the emergency room. The court noted no evidence of coercive police conduct or the defendant's inability to consent, and it did not reach the alternative search warrant issue. The topics are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, James Lee Herlth appealed his judgment of sentence for possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver after a state trooper, responding to an overdose at Herlth's residence, shined a flashlight through a small hole in a closed shoebox and seized scramble capsules inside. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that Herlth had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shoebox contents, that the flashlight use constituted a search, and that the search was not justified under the community caretaking doctrine or the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment because the drugs were not visible without the intrusive action into the closed container. The court therefore reversed the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. The ruling focused on the limits of warrantless searches in a private residence even when officers are lawfully present for emergency purposes.

criminal lawprocedure

In Commonwealth v. Bynum, the appellant was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated assault and related offenses stemming from a shooting incident in Philadelphia where he allegedly fired at the victim during a confrontation involving the victim's sister. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five to ten years' incarceration followed by probation. On appeal, the appellant challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the weight of the evidence. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the claims were waived because they were not properly preserved at trial or sentencing and were inadequately developed on appeal.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over who must pay to relocate utility poles on private property under a standardized right-of-way agreement between GECO Holdings and West Penn Power Company. GECO sought to build on its land and requested relocation of the poles, which West Penn agreed to do but refused to fund, leading GECO to sue on multiple contract and related claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to West Penn on all but one count, and the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the agreement required relocation but was silent on costs. The court reasoned that, under Pennsylvania precedent concerning easements, the party benefiting from a relocation must bear the expense absent explicit contractual language to the contrary.

property

The case involved Dwayne Lee Cantelmo appealing his sentence after pleading guilty to driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, which included fines and incarceration. The court reasoned that the appellant's challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence was waived because it was not properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved appellant Tyree Morris suing his former appellate attorney Michael Wiseman for claims arising from representation in Morris's criminal appeal and PCRA proceedings following his 2017 convictions for attempted murder and related offenses. The trial court sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the amended complaint in full, finding the claims time-barred under tort statutes of limitations. The Superior Court affirmed dismissal of the professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims but vacated dismissal of the breach of contract claim, reasoning that the gist of the action doctrine does not convert a contract claim into a tort or subject it to the shorter tort limitations period, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim alone.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned appeals by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families from trial court orders dismissing dependency petitions for three children, filed after a report that the father had sexually abused one child and amid concerns that the mother had not followed through on protecting the children or addressing her own mental health issues. The trial court had dismissed the petitions after a hearing, determining the children were not dependent. The Superior Court vacated the orders and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the trial court failed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into whether the father was immediately available to provide proper parental care or control, particularly given the parents' prior cohabitation and lack of a custody order granting him responsibility for the children.

family law

The case involved Steven Nichols appealing from the denial of his pre-sentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas to six counts of burglary and related theft offenses in Butler County. Nichols argued that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary due to illiteracy and hearing difficulties, and that he had a colorable claim of innocence because no victims identified him at the preliminary hearing. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, finding that the written and oral plea colloquies satisfied the requirements for a valid plea and that Nichols was bound by his statements during the colloquy. The court further determined that Nichols failed to support his innocence assertion with facts or evidence, while the Commonwealth would face substantial prejudice from withdrawal because several victims had since died.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over who must pay to relocate utility poles owned by West Penn Power Company on property owned by Accent Developers, LLC, where the poles interfered with Accent's building plans. Under a standardized right-of-way agreement granting West Penn the easement to maintain its electric lines, West Penn was obligated to move the poles when necessary for the owner's future building operations, but the agreement was silent on allocation of relocation costs. Accent advanced the relocation expenses and sued for declaratory relief and reimbursement. The trial court granted summary judgment to West Penn, and the Superior Court affirmed, holding that absent express contractual language to the contrary, the party benefiting from the relocation bears the cost, consistent with precedent such as Minard Run. The court noted that West Penn had agreed to cover certain other damages but not pole relocation.

property