<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bickerton and Bickerton Attorneys at Law &#187; Case Law Summaries</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bickerton-law.com/category/blog/brief-law/case-law-summaries/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bickerton-law.com</link>
	<description>Pittsburgh Criminal Defense Lawyers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:48:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Doty</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-doty/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-doty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:49:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/?p=924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Christopher Doty  2010 PA Super 105 (06/09/2010) Topic: Fugitive Status &#8211; 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 <a href="http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-doty/#more-924'" class="more-link">more »</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-doty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw:  Commonwealth v. Abraham</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-abraham/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-abraham/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ineffective Assistance of Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PCRA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/?p=921</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Joseph Abraham  2010 PA Super 104 (6/08/2010) Topic: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel &#8211; PCRA &#8211; Collateral Consequences Summary: In view of the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;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 <a href="http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-abraham/#more-921'" class="more-link">more »</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2010/06/17/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-abraham/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Perry</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-perry/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-perry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DUI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasonable Suspicion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Traffic Stop]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/?p=756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Thomas A. Perry, Jr.  2009 PA Super 196 (10/06/2009) Topic: DUI &#8211; 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. http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Superior/out/s38036_09.pdf]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-perry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Boich</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-boich/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-boich/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidentiary Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex Crimes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/?p=720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Daryl Boich 2009 PA Super 195 (10/06/2009) Topic: Rape Charges &#8211; Sex Crime &#8211; 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 <a href="http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-boich/#more-720'" class="more-link">more »</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-boich/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Haag</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-haag/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-haag/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:07:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DUI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/?p=718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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. http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-41-2009mo.pdf]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/29/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-haag/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Omar</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/18/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-omar/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/18/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-omar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counterfeiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Violations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/18/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-omar/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Omar J-162A-B-2008 (10/05/2009) Topic: Trademark Counterfeiting &#8211; Constitutionality Summary: 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4119, which prohibited the unauthorized use of a trademark, was struck down as being overbroad. The law prohibited any use of a trademark without considering whether the use was protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-162A&#38;B-2008mo.pdf]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/10/18/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-omar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Harry Galendez</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-harry-galendez/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-harry-galendez/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Probation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search and Seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-harry-galendez/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Harry Galendez 2009 PA Super 185 (9/16/2009) Topic: Defendant&#8217;s Right to be Present &#8211; 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 <a href="http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-harry-galendez/#more-514'" class="more-link">more »</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-harry-galendez/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Christina Marie Houtz</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-christina-marie-houtz/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-christina-marie-houtz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Probation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-christina-marie-houtz/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Christina Marie Houtz 2009 PA Super 186 (9/16/2009) Topic: Terms of Probation &#8211; 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 href="http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-christina-marie-houtz/#more-513'" class="more-link">more »</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-christina-marie-houtz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Jeffrey A. Madeira</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-jeffrey-a-madeira/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-jeffrey-a-madeira/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mandatory Sentence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentencing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-jeffrey-a-madeira/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Madeira 2009 PA Super 180 (9/14/1009) Topic: Sentencing &#8211; Mandatory Minimum Summary: When a statute uses the language &#8220;not less than,&#8221; the sentence referred to must be interpreted to be a mandatory minimum. http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s37026_09.pdf]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-jeffrey-a-madeira/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BriefLaw: Commonwealth v. Israel Santiago</title>
		<link>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-israel-santiago/</link>
		<comments>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-israel-santiago/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Law Summaries]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-israel-santiago/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commonwealth v. Israel Santiago J-34-2009 (8/25/2009) Topic: Motion to Withdraw &#8211; Anders Brief Summary: When filing an Anders Brief, counsel must include an explanation for why s/he believes that the issues the defendant wishes to raise on appeal are wholly frivolous. http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-34-2009mo.pdf]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://bickerton-law.com/2009/09/19/brieflaw-commonwealth-v-israel-santiago/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

