Correale F. Stevens

The case involved Jonathan Walton's appeal from his conviction after a stipulated bench trial for carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence because the defendant's immediate flight upon police questioning provided reasonable suspicion for a seizure, and no error in denying the motion to dismiss because the defendant lacked standing to challenge the firearm licensing statutes as he had never applied for a license. The court reviewed the suppression hearing record, including body camera footage, and applied precedents on reasonable suspicion and standing doctrine under Pennsylvania law.

criminal lawguns

This case concerns the Commonwealth's appeal from a trial court order in Monroe County that granted defendant Aderly Dominguez Alvarez's motion for habeas corpus and quashed the charge of receiving stolen property. The Superior Court affirmed the order, concluding that the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case on the charge, particularly the element of guilty knowledge required by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a). The decision rested on the record showing insufficient evidence linking the defendant to knowledge that the vehicle was stolen. A concurring memorandum noted the absence of charges against the defendant's employer despite the employer's role in the transaction.

criminal law

This case involved an in rem mortgage foreclosure action in which Freedom Mortgage Corporation obtained a judgment against Kenneth R. Brown following a non-jury trial. Brown, appearing pro se after his counsel withdrew, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal because Brown's appellate brief contained substantial defects, including an argument section of only one paragraph that failed to provide meaningful discussion or analysis of cited legal authorities as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court noted that while pro se litigants receive liberal construction of their filings, they must still comply with procedural rules, and the court would not develop arguments on their behalf.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Luis Miguel Aguilar Dircio's appeal from his conviction and sentence in Chester County on multiple counts including aggravated indecent assault, criminal use of a communication facility, endangering the welfare of children, indecent assault, corruption of minors, and unlawful contact with a minor, arising from his sexual abuse of his 10-year-old stepdaughter over several years. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence after reviewing the appellant's challenges to the denial of a suppression motion regarding his cell phone, the admission of evidence about his payment for the victim's family's travel from Honduras, the use of the term 'victim' at trial, the refusal of a jury instruction on prompt complaint, and the sentencing court's consideration of rehabilitative needs. The court concluded that the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusions on suppression were supported by the record, that the challenged evidence and terminology were properly admitted or used, that the jury instruction was not required, and that the sentencing court had properly considered all relevant factors including the presentence investigation report. These determinations led to rejection of all appellate claims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Terry L. Walker, who was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated assault, unlawful restraint, endangering the welfare of children, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person for a physical altercation with his fourteen-year-old daughter. The trial court sentenced him to a term below the guidelines range after rejecting his claim of lawful corporal punishment. On appeal, Walker challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the rejection of his defense, and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. The Superior Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdicts and the sentence reasonable, but remanded solely to correct a clerical error in the written sentencing order regarding merger of counts.

criminal law

The case involved Cedric M. Galette's appeal from a September 29, 2025 judgment of sentence of 6 to 15 years' imprisonment in Montgomery County after he entered a negotiated guilty plea to DUI (controlled substance) and homicide by vehicle while DUI. Galette sought to withdraw his plea post-sentencing, claiming it was not knowing and voluntary because the oral colloquy omitted full explanations of jury trial rights (including peer composition, participation in selection, unanimity, and the presumption of innocence) and the right to confront witnesses. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, ruling that the written guilty plea questionnaire and on-the-record hearing showed Galette acknowledged understanding those rights and was bound by his statements, with no showing of manifest injustice. The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Rafaela LaPenta's pro se appeal from a trial court order denying her petition for a final Protection from Abuse (PFA) order against her ex-boyfriend Jonathan Fagan, the father of her children, under Pennsylvania's PFA Act. The Superior Court affirmed the denial following a December 2025 hearing, finding no abuse of discretion or legal error by the trial court. The core reasoning was that the record contained only evidence of vulgar name-calling and offensive communications without threats of violence, stalking, or other conduct placing LaPenta in reasonable fear of bodily injury, which failed to satisfy the statutory definitions of abuse in 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a), including subsection (a)(5)'s course-of-conduct provision. The court noted that the PFA Act does not address mere annoyance or verbal hostility and that any related issues should be addressed in ongoing custody proceedings.

family law

This case involves Kevin Green's pro se appeal from the dismissal of his 2022 PCRA petition challenging his 1995 conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in a 1993 killing. The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely filed more than a year after the judgment became final in 1996, and the Superior Court affirmed. The court held that Green failed to establish an exception to the PCRA's one-year time bar under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1), as his claims of newly discovered facts regarding alleged police misconduct and Brady violations were either known or discoverable with due diligence at the time of trial or arose from unrelated later cases, and he did not show the required diligence. The court further ruled that no evidentiary hearing was required because the petition raised no genuine issue of material fact that could entitle Green to relief.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Miguel Bell appealed his convictions after a bench trial for carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the gun seized from his satchel during a police encounter. The court affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the initial police interaction was a mere encounter and that Bell's nervous and evasive responses to questions about the heavy bag, combined with the high-crime area, gave officers reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry frisk. The officer then felt what he identified as a firearm through the bag, leading to the seizure. The decision relied on the totality of circumstances, including body cam evidence and officer testimony, to conclude the stop and frisk were constitutional.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

The case involves Keith Mitchell appealing his sentences following a technical violation of parole on two separate convictions for manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to deliver controlled substances. The trial court found him in violation, revoked his parole, and imposed consecutive sentences for the remaining back time on both dockets. The Superior Court reversed, holding that because the underlying parole sentences were concurrent, the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive back-time sentences, which would unlawfully extend the maximum term beyond the original sentence. The court remanded for resentencing consistent with the requirement that the sentences run concurrently.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Asisat Adewale and Sheriff Abiodun Adewale over the validity of their 2011 marriage in Nigeria and related alimony pendente lite (APL) obligations after separation in 2018. The trial court entered a declaratory judgment finding the marriage void ab initio on the ground that the wife was already married to another person at the time and terminated the husband's APL obligation without requiring repayment of prior payments. The Superior Court affirmed these orders, reasoning that the Divorce Code authorizes APL during annulment proceedings for void marriages but permits termination once the marriage is definitively declared invalid, and the evidence supported the finding of bigamy. The court also rejected the husband's cross-appeal seeking credit for previous APL amounts paid.

family law

This case involved an uncle's request for a custody order and special findings to support his nephew's application for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) under federal immigration law after the nephew arrived from Honduras. The trial court denied the request, finding that the mother had not abused, abandoned, or neglected the child and that it was not contrary to the child's best interests to return to Honduras. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed after remand to reconsider in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Velasquez decision, concluding that the trial court's factual findings independently supported denial of the SIJS predicate order. The court held that Pennsylvania law does not equate parental financial hardship with neglect or abuse and that the record did not establish the required predicate facts.

immigrationfamily law

This case involved a dispute between buyers Joseph and Emma Termini and sellers William and Cynthia Redel over the sellers' disclosure of the septic system on a Chester County property sold in 2020. The buyers sued under the Pennsylvania Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, alleging that the sellers omitted key details about the system's age, components including a pump, and prior issues despite knowing some parts predated 1998. The trial court entered a non-jury verdict for the buyers, awarding $19,399 on the disclosure claim and $30,100 on the consumer protection claim. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, finding that the sellers' omissions created a likelihood of confusion and that the buyers relied on the incomplete disclosures to their detriment.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved Ieshia Marie Johnson’s appeal from her conviction, after a bench trial, of driving under the influence of alcohol. Johnson was stopped by police in the parking lot of a shopping center after a witness reported her driving away; officers observed a strong odor of alcohol, her admission to drinking, red eyes, slurred speech, and her poor performance on field sobriety tests, leading to her arrest. The trial court sentenced her to six months of probation and a $300 fine. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to show she operated the vehicle on a public “trafficway” (a shopping center parking lot open to vehicular travel) and that she was incapable of safely driving due to alcohol consumption. The court relied on statutory definitions, officer testimony, and prior precedent recognizing such parking lots as trafficways.

criminal law

This case involved Sakou June Armour appealing his judgment of sentence after a jury convicted him of Possession of Firearms Prohibited under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105, based on evidence that a silver firearm fell from his pant leg during a police response to an overdose incident. The trial court imposed a sentence within the guidelines after reviewing a presentence investigation report and the defendant's prior criminal history, including a prior record score from a qualifying aggravated assault conviction. On appeal to the Superior Court, Armour challenged the sentence on grounds that the court improperly considered non-conviction arrests or the full PSI report. The court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the trial court explicitly disregarded any impermissible arrest records as required by precedent like Commonwealth v. Berry, properly relied on countable convictions and the PSI, and did not abuse its discretion in finding the sentence reasonable.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Brian Zuckerman, a former employee of Domus, Inc., suing insurance brokers Brown & Brown of PA and Daniel McCormick after they facilitated a switch in Domus's group long-term disability insurance from Dearborn to Equitable, which allegedly caused his premiums to rise sharply while he was on medical leave for cancer treatment. Zuckerman claimed breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment, asserting he was an intended beneficiary of the brokerage agreement and had received assurances that his coverage would not be disrupted. The trial court sustained the defendants' preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to support viable claims, including third-party beneficiary status under the contract between Domus and the brokers, and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved James Bryan Maloney's appeal from the denial of his first PCRA petition challenging his convictions for three counts of rape of a child following a stipulated bench trial. Maloney argued that the PCRA court erred in allowing his counsel to withdraw and in denying him leave to file an amended petition raising claims of ineffective assistance. The Superior Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief, finding no merit to the claims regarding counsel's performance or procedural errors. However, the court sua sponte vacated the judgment of sentence because the trial court lacked authority to impose a non-contact condition with the victim as part of the state sentence or parole, which is reserved for the Department of Corrections and Parole Board, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a custody dispute between Jaclyn Cocco (Mother) and Rosario Palmieri, Jr. (Father) over their three minor children, with Mother initially filing for custody in 2018 after the parties separated across state lines. Following a 2025 trial marked by extensive prior petitions and high conflict, the trial court awarded primary physical custody to Mother and partial physical custody to Father. Father appealed, raising claims of abuse of discretion in weighing the best-interests factors, improper reliance on the judge's personal experiences, failure to address expert testimony, and due process issues from delays in ruling on pending petitions. The Superior Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's findings were supported by competent evidence, no abuse of discretion occurred, and certain claims were waived for lack of timely objection.

family lawprocedure

This case involved the appeal of Marvin Hill's convictions for voluntary manslaughter and persons not to possess a firearm, stemming from a 2020 shooting incident in a Pittsburgh housing complex where gunfire exchanged among three men resulted in the death of a one-year-old child. Hill challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings, and alleged that the prosecution suppressed or altered exculpatory video footage from the scene. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the 19-38 year sentence, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict, that gaps in the video recordings were attributable to poor camera quality rather than tampering, and that Hill failed to establish a Brady violation or other grounds for relief.

criminal lawguns

This case involves an ongoing custody dispute between Alisha M. Sposato (Mother) and Anthony Sposato II (Father) regarding their three minor children in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Mother appealed the trial court's order reappointing Jordan Reilly as guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the children's interests. The Superior Court affirmed the reappointment, finding it was within the trial court's authority, consistent with prior agreements on the record, and necessary to maintain the status quo amid findings of parental alienation and multiple prior proceedings. The court also remanded the matter to determine appellate attorneys' fees payable by Mother to Father after concluding the appeal was frivolous and vexatious.

family law