Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
451 results for '* topic:"Criminal Appeals"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-01-04
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge McCaffery
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1431
PCRA court erred in accepting and holding petition where petitioner's request for direct appeal with the supreme court was still pending, such that petitioner's sentence had not become final and the PCRA court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Appeal quashed.
Publication Date: 2021-01-04
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Stevens
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1434
Pretrial motion to dismiss charges due to law enforcement's destruction of dashcam footage of defendant's traffic stop was denied where, because such evidence could only be deemed potentially useful, defendant had failed to show the footage was deleted or destroyed by commonwealth in bad faith. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-12-07
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Ford Elliott
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1321
The appellate court found, in this case of first impression, that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to address an untimely motion for the return of property filed on behalf of defendant's wife as defendant's failure to file such a motion during the pendency of his criminal proceedings resulted in waiver of the issue. The superior court vacated the trial court's order.
Publication Date: 2020-11-30
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Todd
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1292
Capital crime defendant not entitled to Atkins instruction during penalty phase where defendant failed to present evidence that met the criteria for intellectual disability under Atkins case law. Judgment of sentence of death affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-11-23
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Lazarus
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1268
The juvenile court did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion in determining that the minor defendant was in need of supervision where the evidence did not overcome the presumption, arising from a felony conviction for viewing/possessing child pornography, that defendant was in need of supervision, treatment or rehabilitation. The superior court affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Rosemary Alito
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-11-16
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Lazarus
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1238
The trial court did not err in resentencing defendant, who was a juvenile when he committed second-degree murder, to a maximum sentence of life in prison since Pennsylvania precedent establishes that 18 Pa.C.S. §1102(b) must be interpreted to require a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for juveniles convicted of such an offense. The superior court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.
Publication Date: 2020-11-02
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1183
District court erred in dismissing habeas petition as untimely where recantations from three state witnesses and a fourth witness's confession to the crime presented sufficient evidence of actual innocence to warrant evidentiary hearing. Order of the district court vacated, case remanded. Gerald Howell appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The victim, Herbert Allen, was shot and killed on Christmas Eve, 1982. Although police recovered no physical evidence at the crime scene, appellant was
Publication Date: 2020-11-02
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Saylor
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1181
While the high court expressed "substantial concerns" about the appropriate use of microscopic hair comparison analysis in the courtroom, it declined to use this case as a vessel to categorically disapprove microscopic hair comparison analysis and bar it from the courtroom. The high court affirmed an order denying defendant PCRA relief.
Publication Date: 2020-11-02
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Wecht
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1182
Trial court erred in concluding analysis of defendant's alleged intellectual disability after finding standardized testing conducted by defendant's experts to be not credible, where determination of intellectual disability was not limited solely to the results of diagnostic testing but could be based on other assessments as well. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2020-10-26
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Bowes
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1154
The trial court erred in determining that defendant's robbery conviction was a "second strike offense" under 42 Pa.C.S. §9714 where his 2010 conviction for third-degree aggravated assault in New Jersey was not a "crime of violence" as defined in Pennsylvania. The superior court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read