Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Matulewicz

    Publication Date: 2018-01-09
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
    Judge: Judge Steinberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1861

    Defendant failed to demonstrate that the two-year delay between the occurrence of the alleged crime and her arrest prejudiced her by impeding her ability to mount a defense to the charges asserted by the commonwealth. The court denied defendants omnibus pretrial motion.

  • Commonwealth v. Davis

    Publication Date: 2018-01-02
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Elliott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1887

    Commonwealth could compel defendant to provide password to defendants encrypted computer under foregone conclusion exception to right against self-incrimination, as the computers encrypted status established the existence of the password, and defendants ownership and sole use of the computer meant that he was in possession of an authentic password. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. McCain

    Publication Date: 2018-01-02
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Musmanno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1888

    Trial court erred in imposing intermediate punishment well below mitigated sentencing range, where defendant inflicted permanent injury upon victim and had significant violent criminal history, and where trial courts justifications failed to support a lenient sentence. Judgment of sentence vacated, case remanded for resentencing.

  • Commonwealth v. Gordon

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Butts
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1521

    Defendant, who was twice arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, did not have to be advised that he had a constitutional right to refuse a blood test and there was no requirement that defendants consent to the blood draw be knowing, voluntary and intelligent, but just voluntary. The court denied defendants motion to suppress.

  • Commonwealth v. Holt

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1844

    Defendant could not succeed on his ineffectiveness of counsel claim for failure to file a Rule 600 motion based upon an alleged speedy trial violation where there were more than 800 excludable and excusable delays that extended his adjusted run date well beyond his trial date. The court affirmed defendants judgment of sentence.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Infobeans book publish cronjobs test

    Authors: Stephen Fishman

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Livingstone

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1845

    The high court concluded that an individual in defendants position, i.e., stopped in a car on the side of the road with a police car pulled up alongside her with emergency lights on, was subjected to an investigatory detention without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and that the public servant exception under the community caretaking doctrine did not otherwise justify the warrantless seizure. The court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Aunkst

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Lovecchio
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1785

    The court did not err in imposing a post-revocation sentence, because defendant continued to have substance abuse issues and he failed to comply with his probation conditions despite having numerous opportunities to participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs.

  • Commonwealth v. Garms

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Lovecchio
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1519

    The court refused to suppress the test results of a blood draw taken from defendant on the night she was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol where defendant provided voluntary consent to the blood draw. The court denied defendants motion to suppress.

  • Paluch v. Dept of Corrections

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Colins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1853

    The court granted respondents preliminary objections to inmates complaint asserting common law torts, constitutional and mandamus claims over spending decisions made with funds in the inmate general welfare fund and the destruction of some of his personal property because the DOCs fiscal administration policy did not provide prisoner IGWF representatives with the authority to approve, veto or vote on how the monies were spent, inmates claims were barred by sovereign immunity and the inmate grievance system was an adequate post-dep

  • Commonwealth v. Glasgow

    Publication Date: 2017-12-19
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
    Judge: Judge Steinberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1796

    The Probation and Parole Board had exclusive authority to decide questions regarding parole matters. The court of common pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear defendants appeal regarding his parole, because appeals from the boards parole revocation and recommitment orders were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the commonwealth court.