Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Frein

    Publication Date: 2019-05-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0530

    While the victim impact evidence admitted by the trial court in this case may have been unnecessarily extensive, defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the admission of such evidence where the jury found several aggravating circumstances but no mitigating factors. The high court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Jezzi

    Publication Date: 2019-05-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Gantman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0551

    Contrary to defendant's assertion, the Medical Marijuana Act, which created a temporary program for qualified persons to access medical marijuana, did not conflict with the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act and thus require declassification of marijuana as a controlled substance. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Dozier

    Publication Date: 2019-05-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Strassburger
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0548

    The trial court properly rejected defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program eligibility on his behalf as defendant's past and present violent behavior barred him from such relief. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

  • Commonwealth v. Cephus

    Publication Date: 2019-05-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0514

    The trial court properly found that a state trooper had probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle where he saw the vehicle failing to maintain its lane in violation of Motor Vehicle Code §3309(1) and dash camera footage supported an inference that the trooper saw defendant's car cross over the center line multiple times. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Medina

    Publication Date: 2019-05-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Colins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0511

    The trial court properly denied defendant post-conviction relief based on trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness for failure to call character witnesses where defendant failed to establish that the testimony of any of his alleged character witnesses would have been admissible at his criminal trial. The appellate court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    America Invents Act (AIA) Handbook: A Guide to the Patent Law Reform of 2011, The, 2015 Edition

    Authors: Mary Anthony Merchant

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Beatty

    Publication Date: 2019-04-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Gantman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0479

    The trial court erred in holding defendant's second petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act in abeyance, pending the outcome of his appeal from the denial of his first PCRA petition, and then reinstating the second petition for review on the merits without a jurisdictional analysis. The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-judgment relief on other grounds.

  • Commonwealth v. Duke

    Publication Date: 2019-04-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0478

    The trial court erred in concluding that arresting officers faced "exigent circumstances" while on defendant's property where the troopers failed to observe any conduct or action on defendant's part from which they could reasonably infer that defendant intended to harm them. The appellate court vacated defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Blount

    Publication Date: 2019-04-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0482

    There was valid authority for the sentencing court to impose upon defendant, a juvenile lifer, a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for his first-degree murder convictions given the state high court's 2017 decision in Commonwealth v. Batts. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Beish

    Publication Date: 2019-04-29
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0481

    The trial court did not deprive defendant of his constitutional due process rights when it found him ineligible for the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive program under 61 Pa.C.S. §4503(5) since defendant had no constitutional right or interest in participating in that program. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Davis

    Publication Date: 2019-04-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Musmanno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0449

    The trial court did not err in sentencing defendant, a juvenile lifer entitled to resentencing in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama, to 40 years to life in prison as the trial court was authorized to exercise discretion in imposing a sentence beyond the 35-year minimum provided in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §1102.1(a). The appellate court affirmed in part and vacated in part defendant's judgment of sentence.