Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Johnson

    Publication Date: 2019-01-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0055

    The trial court committed a clear error of law in analyzing a traffic stop and concluding that the stop was unlawful due to what it believed was the arresting officer's subjective motivation for stopping defendant's vehicle. The appellate court reversed a trial court order granting suppression of evidence.

  • Commonwealth v. Lehman

    Publication Date: 2019-01-22
    Practice Area: Civil Rights | Criminal Appeals | Criminal Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0061

    Criminal defendant could not be ordered to pay costs of resentencing after his original sentence was deemed unconstitutional because to do so would punish the defendant for the exercise of his constitutional rights. Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and vacated in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Fill

    Publication Date: 2019-01-22
    Practice Area: Civil Rights | Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0057

    The trial court erred in not affording defendant the assistance of counsel at hearing on the commonwealth's motion resulting in a reduction of his credit for time served since defendant was entitled to such assistance at that critical stage in the proceedings and he did not forfeit the right to counsel through misconduct. The appellate court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Kline

    Publication Date: 2019-01-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0053

    Although defendant's non-verbal gunshot gesture toward the victim was not accompanied by any type of verbal communication, the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had the intent to terrorize the victim, as required to prove the crime of terroristic threats. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Landis

    Publication Date: 2019-01-15
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Elliott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0016

    The trial court did not err in ruling that the reinstatement of a third-degree murder charge against defendant was barred on retrial by double jeopardy or laches even though the underlying verdict was inconsistent. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Allegheny County and Westmoreland County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Luciani

    Publication Date: 2019-01-15
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Appeals | Legislation
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0018

    Since application of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would inflict greater punishment upon defendant than the law in effect when he committed the crimes, the statute could not be applied retroactively to him without violating the ex post facto clause of the state constitution. The appellate court vacated in part defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Baker

    Publication Date: 2019-01-15
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Shogan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0017

    The evidence at trial and the statutory language in 18 Pa.C.S. §3101 supported defendant's conviction for rape by forcible compulsion where he shot and killed the victim and then had sexual intercourse with her, as time of the victim's death was not dispositive. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Creary

    Publication Date: 2019-01-01
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1582

    In this case of first impression, the appellate court held that a determination on whether a party may rehabilitate a witness with the facts underlying a crimen falsi conviction used for impeachment is left to the discretion of the trial court and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the commonwealth to rehabilitate the complainant with the facts underlying his prior conviction. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Stahley

    Publication Date: 2019-01-01
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1587

    PCRA court properly found that appellant failed to establish his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim based on appellant's alleged intoxication at the time of the crime his statement to police. His challenge to the legality of his sentence under Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410, failed because that case was not a substantive rule or a watershed procedural rule that applied retroactively. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Weir

    Publication Date: 2019-01-01
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1589

    Appellant challenged the restitution aspect of his sentence for criminal mischief and the court found that his challenge did not implicate the legality of the award but rather the discretionary aspects of his sentence and the court was precluded from reaching the merits of his claim because the commonwealth objected to his failure to include a separate rule 2119(f) statement. Affirmed.