Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Cryan

    Publication Date: 2019-02-19
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0175

    The trial court properly concluded that defendant's New York conviction for tampering with a witness was not substantially similar to the Pennsylvania crime of intimidation of a witness such that he was not subject to charges for possession of a firearm by persons prohibited under 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(a)(1). The appellate court affirmed an order dismissing charges.

  • Commonwealth v. Martinez

    Publication Date: 2019-02-19
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0174

    Defendant, who elected to plead guilty to charges of unlawfully possessing a firearm, was bound by the statements he made in open court while under oath; thus, he could not assert grounds for withdrawing his plea which contradicted the statements he made at his plea colloquy. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Ballance

    Publication Date: 2019-02-19
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Gantman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0176

    Where defendant filed an untimely petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act, the PCRA court had no jurisdiction to restore defendant's direct appeal rights nun pro tunc via the untimely petition. The appellate court dismissed defendant's appeal from an order denying him post-conviction relief.

  • Commonwealth v. Finnegan

    Publication Date: 2019-02-19
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0173

    Defendant's mandatory minimum sentence under 35 P.S. §780-113(k) did not violate Alleyne, as his guilty plea to manufacturing the specific controlled substance of methamphetamine triggered the application of 35 P.S. §780-113(k), not any factual findings of the sentencing court. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgement of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Finnegan

    Publication Date: 2019-02-19
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0173

    Defendant's mandatory minimum sentence under 35 P.S. §780-113(k) did not violate Alleyne, as his guilty plea to manufacturing the specific controlled substance of methamphetamine triggered the application of 35 P.S. §780-113(k), not any factual findings of the sentencing court. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgement of sentence.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Section 337 Investigations: Unfair Trade Practice Litigation Before the ITC

    Authors: Michael G. McManus, Rodney R. Sweetland, III

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Barnes v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole

    Publication Date: 2019-02-12
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge McCullough
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0150

    The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole did not conduct an untimely parole revocation hearing, as defendant claimed, since the Board was only obligated to conduct such a hearing within 120 days of acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant parolee, i.e. after he left a Philadelphia County Prison and was returned to a state facility. The appellate court affirmed in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Clemons

    Publication Date: 2019-02-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0121

    The high court conducted an independent evaluation of the record in this capital murder case and found the evidence sufficient to prove defendant guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including specific intent, which could be inferred from his use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of a victim's body. The high court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Green

    Publication Date: 2019-02-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry: Recruitment and Staffing
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0123

    The commonwealth established all the elements of a forgery, including the mens rea element, where the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom established that defendant knew he was not a proper payee on a legitimate check from the victim staffing agency. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Monarch

    Publication Date: 2019-02-05
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0119

    The intermediate appellate court erred in concluding that defendant's enhanced sentence for driving while intoxicated was not unconstitutional where he not only refused to submit to blood testing, but also refused to submit to breath testing. The high court vacated defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Adams

    Publication Date: 2019-02-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0120

    Pursuant to the fugitive forfeiture rule as applied in Commonwealth v. Deemer, the appellate court correctly affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence after the trial court found that he forfeited his appellate rights due to his fugitive status, even where counsel filed a timely notice of appeal on his behalf. The high court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.