Commonwealth v. Christopher Doty 2010 PA Super 105 (06/09/2010)
Topic: Fugitive Status – Waiver v. Forfeiture of Appellate Rights - Challenging an Illegal Sentence
Summary: When a defendant becomes a fugitive from justice during the appellate period, he may forfeit his right to pursue an appellate review. This forfeiture applies to issues that cannot be waived, like the legality of the sentence.
Commonwealth v. Joseph Abraham 2010 PA Super 104 (6/08/2010)
Topic: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – PCRA – Collateral Consequences
Summary: In view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, the fact that a consequence of a conviction is a collateral one will not protect an attorney from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. To be effective, an attorney must inform his client of any consequences when the “consequences in question are succinct, clear, and distinct….” Also, an attorney will be found to be ineffective if she fails to give “good advice about a serious consequence.”
Commonwealth v. Thomas A. Perry, Jr. 2009 PA Super 196 (10/06/2009)
Topic: DUI – Reasonable Suspicion for a Traffic Stop
Summary: When an officer observes a driver operating a vehicle in such a fashion that there is the potential for an accident, there is reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
Commonwealth v. Daryl Boich 2009 PA Super 195 (10/06/2009)
Topic: Rape Charges – Sex Crime – Involuntary Psychiatric Evaluation of a Witness/Victim
Summary: A court may not compel a witness/victim to submit to an involuntary psychiatric evaluation unless the record shows a compelling need for the evaluation. Gaps in testimony, even if those gaps are attributed to the use of prescription drugs with alcohol, are an issue of credibility, not competence, and are therefore insufficient to justify an involuntary psychiatric evaluation.
*Note: Judge Klein’s dissenting opinion argues that where a judge is unable to determine whether a witness is competent due to an inability to interpret the evidence given, an involuntary psychiatric evaluation is justified.
Commonwealth v. Patrick A. Haag, Sr J-41-2009 (10/23/2009)
Topic: DUI - Prior Offenses
Summary: For a DUI offense to be a second or subsequent conviction for sentencing purposes, the offender must be convicted of the prior offense before committing the second or subsequent offense.
Commonwealth v. Harry Galendez 2009 PA Super 185 (9/16/2009)
Topic: Defendant’s Right to be Present – Parole and Probation Searches
Summary:
Topic: Defendant’s Right to be Present – Parole and Probation Searches
Summary: 1.) The defendant and his counsel have the right to be present at every crucial stage of the trial process, including the issuing of probationary conditions. 2.) Searches made as a condition of parole or probation must be supported by reasonable suspicion. Additionally, the trial court may not make any parole or probation conditions for any sentence that would subject the defendant to the supervision of the State Board of Probation and Parole.
Topic: Terms of Probation – Undue Restrictions
Summary: A probationary restriction must be reasonably tied to the illegal act. Therefore, where a defendant was not accused of using the Internet to commit her offense, the trial court is not justified in prohibiting Internet usage as a term of probation.
Commonwealth v. Madeira 2009 PA Super 180 (9/14/1009)
Topic: Sentencing – Mandatory Minimum
Summary: When a statute uses the language “not less than,” the sentence referred to must be interpreted to be a mandatory minimum.