1

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

Continue Reading

0
Commonwealth v. Harry Galendez 2009 PA Super 185 (9/16/2009)

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.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a15016_09.pdf

Continue Reading

0
Commonwealth v. Christina Marie Houtz 2009 PA Super 186 (9/16/2009)

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.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s23028_09.pdf

Continue Reading

0

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.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s37026_09.pdf

Continue Reading

0
Debra Erdley reports in the Sunday, August 23, 2009 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that while “tough on crime” laws have served to increase prison populations, there has been no corresponding decrease in the crime rate. According to State Senator Stewart Greenleaf, the harsh penalties he and fellow legislators enacted served to punish non-violent offenders more severely, but statistics indicate that crime in Pennsylvania has not decreased. As a result of mandatory sentences for drug offenders and other harsh sentencing schemes, roughly half of Pennsylvania’s prison population consists of “non-violent offenders and mentally ill inmates.”

The article also points out that the general public holds an overly simplistic view of crime and punishment and are too easily swayed by the belief that incarceration is the ideal solution to crime problems.

For more information, go to:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_639625.html#

Continue Reading

0
Commonwealth v. Daniel J. Schmohl 2009 PA Super 97 (5/26/2009)

Topic: DUI – Merger of Offenses

Summary: Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a high rate of alcohol is a lesser included offense of Aggravated Assault while Driving Under the Influence. Therefore, the offenses merge for sentencing purposes.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/A06009_09.pdf

Continue Reading

0
Commonwealth v. Syvol Bowen 2009 PA Super 94 (5/21/2009)

Topic: Sentencing – Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent

Summary: A sentencing court may not use a defendant’s silence as its sole reason for enhancing a sentence. Additionally, a sentencing court may not use a defendant’s silence at a sentencing hearing as a proof that the defendant does not take responsibility for the offense.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a04028_08.pdf

Continue Reading

0
Commonwealth v. Matthew Wayne Dietrich J-61-2009 (5/27/2009)

Topic: Restitution – Amending a Restitution Order

Summary: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a restitution order that sets an amount of restitution and states that the order is subject to later modification is not invalid. Further, under 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1106(c)(3), a court may modify restitution at any time, but the reasons for the modification must be stated on the record.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-61-2009mo.pdf

Continue Reading

0
Commonwealth v. Mears 2009 PA Super 83 (5/04/2009)

Topic: Sentencing Conditions – Random Searches as a Condition of Probation or Parole

Summary: The Superior Court reversed and remanded where the trial court made random residence searches a condition of Mears’ sentence. The sentence was invalid because 1.) Mears was not sentenced to probation and 2.) Mears’ was given a state sentence, therefore, the sentencing court could not usurp the power of the State Parole Board by giving parole conditions.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a04025_09.pdf

Continue Reading

0
Federal Judge Robert C. Mitchell has ruled that common pleas judges in Pennsylvania are permitted to ban convicts from a municipality only when the defendant is given a “county sentence” (a county sentence is any sentence less than two years of incarceration). When a defendant is given a “state sentence” (a sentence of more than two years of incarceration) the authority to keep a defendant out of a municipality rests with the Pennsylvania State Board of Probation and Parole.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_620325.html?source=rss&feed=2

Continue Reading