Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants Charles and Agnes Messina, and Lehigh Asphalt Paving and Construction Company appealed the Commonwealth Court's affirmation of the order of the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas, which held appellants' challenge to East Penn Township Zoning Ordinance No. 1996-94 was time-barred. Charles and Agnes Messina own 114.4 acres in East Penn Township where they reside in a single-family residence. Lehigh Asphalt Paving and Construction Company is the equitable owner of the property pursuant to an option contract, and it uses a portion of the property as a quarry. In 2008, appellants filed a lawsuit in the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas asserting the Ordinance was void ab initio because East Penn Township failed to strictly adhere to procedural requirements for adopting a zoning ordinance as required by section10610(b) of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Appellants specifically argued East Penn Township made changes to the zoning map on the night of the Ordinance's adoption and failed to provide notice to the public of these changes before enacting them. The trial court was unable to determine what changes had been made to the Ordinance on the night of its adoption, due to the record's vagueness, and offered to hold an evidentiary hearing on what changes had been made, but the parties declined. Consequently, the trial court held appellants failed to show a substantial change made and found the claim was statutorily time-barred. Upon review of the lower courts' records, the Supreme Court affirmed the holdings that appellants' claim was time-barred because they failed to meet their burden of proof that the township did not substantially comply with statutory procedure as required by the applicable statute. View "Messina v. East Penn Twp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court addressed cross-appeals in this opinion, arising from a capital matter from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The lower court granted partial relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), which the Commonwealth appealed insofar as it granted relief on Appellee Jose DeJesus's claim that he was ineligible for the death penalty under "Atkins v. Virginia," (536 U.S. 304 (2002)), because he was mentally retarded. Appellee cross-appealed the PCRA court's concurrent denial of his various other PCRA claims. At trial, before the court issued a decision on Appellee's "Atkins" claim, the Commonwealth filed a motion to reopen the record, asserting that it had recently received information from prison officials that she substantial doubt on appellee's claims of mental retardation. The PCRA Court denied the Commonwealth's motion, offering no further explanation or discussion for the denial. The PCRA court concluded that appellee had met his burden to prove limited intellectual functioning. In the court's view, the Commonwealth's evidence and argument that appellee malingered on his post-Atkins tests, while "compelling," did not "carry the day." The PCRA court also addressed the merits of the claims raised by appellee in his cross-appeal, rejecting them all. The Supreme Court concluded the PCRA Court abused its discretion in not entertaining the Commonwealth's new evidence. "The Commonwealth's proffer specified that this evidence was relevant to the intellectual and adaptive function elements of Atkins because it showed appellee's ability, not only to function within prison, but to use his wits and skills to 'beat the system' in a manner that required forethought, direction and coordination of others." The Supreme Court vacated the PCRA court's decision and accompanying order which found appellee mentally retarded and vacated his death sentences, but otherwise denied relief. This matter was remanded for further Atkins proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. DeJesus" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed a superior court order that reversed an order denying appellee's petition for post conviction relief and for remanding for an evidentiary hearing. Appellee Joseph Abraham was accused of soliciting a former student for sex, and for allegedly sexually assaulting her. When the allegations surfaced, the then 67-year-old Appellee retired from teaching and began receiving pension payments. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, appellee pled guilty to corruption of a minor and indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age. He was sentenced to probation; no direct appeal was filed. Because the crime of indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age is one of the enumerated offenses in the Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act (PEPFA), appellee forfeited his pension when he pled guilty to this charge. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea nunc pro tunc, alleging he was not informed of his right to seek withdrawal of his plea or of the possible sentences he faced. The trial court denied the motion. Appellee filed a timely PCRA petition alleging plea counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him he would forfeit his pension upon pleading guilty. The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed. "Because counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advise a defendant regarding the collateral consequences of a plea, appellee's ineffectiveness claim fails." Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Superior Court granting appellee a PCRA hearing on the issue of prejudice, and remanded the case to reinstate the PCRA court's order denying appellee relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Abraham" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2006 to appeal his murder conviction. The Federal Community Defender Office ("FCDO"), Capital Habeas Unit unilaterally entered its appearance.on Appellant's behalf. Federal counsel filed a lengthy amended petition, alleging numerous claims of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel. The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing over four separate days. Following the hearing, the court denied relief. Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. Appellant's issues on appeal, as summarized by the Court: (1) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present mental health evidence to support claims of diminished mental capacity, imperfect belief of defense of others, and mitigating evidence; (2) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenges of potential jurors; (3) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to properly question potential jurors who were excused because they expressed doubts about imposing the death penalty; (4) whether counsel was ineffective in challenging appellant’s inculpatory statements; (5) whether the jury was presented with materially false evidence by the Commonwealth and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present an expert to dispute this evidence; (6) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to object to victim impact evidence; (7) whether error in the guilt phase jury instructions violated appellant’s due process rights; (8) whether counsel had a conflict of interest; (9) whether appellant’s rights were violated because no transcript existed of portions of his trial; and (10) whether the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warranted relief. After thorough review of Appellant's claims, the Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court insofar as it dismissed all claims other than that of ineffective assistance of counsel associated with the investigation, development, and presentation of mitigation evidence. With respect to this claim, the PCRA court's order was vacated, and the matter was remanded for further consideration. View "Pennsylvania v. Sepulveda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine, as a matter of first impression, whether a defendant in a products liability action must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured party's alleged "highly reckless conduct" was the sole or superseding cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Upon review of the Superior Court record, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that in order to avoid liability, a defendant raising a claim of highly reckless conduct must indeed plead and prove such claim as an affirmative defense. "Moreover, this evidence must further establish that the highly reckless conduct was the sole or superseding cause of the injuries sustained." The Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court. View "Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc." on Justia Law

In this capital post-conviction matter, Carolyn Ann King appealed an order denying guilt-phase relief but granting a new sentencing hearing. In 1993, Appellant's co-defendant Bradley Martin received a prison visitation pass that allowed him to leave the Lebanon County prison where he was incarcerated. He met Appellant, with whom he was romantically involved, and failed to return to prison as required. Instead, the two traveled to Palmyra, where they visited Guy Goodman, with whom Martin was acquainted. After arriving at Goodman's home, Martin struck Goodman over the head with a vase, and the pair disabled Goodman by tightly binding his wrists, ankles, and neck. They then placed various wrappings around his head, sealing them with duct tape. Finally, they carried Goodman into the basement, tying him even more securely and wrapping him in a bedspread, and then leaving him to suffocate while they stole his checkbook and credit card and fled in his car. During their flight, Appellant and Martin used Goodman's credit card and checks to pay their expenses. Martin and Appellant were eventually apprehended in Arizona. In 2000, Appellant filed a timely, pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Thereafter, she was given permission to file a counseled, amended petition, and her execution was stayed pending final resolution of her claims. New counsel for Appellant filed amended and supplemental petitions, raising numerous claims for collateral relief predicated on trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. The PCRA court ultimately denied Appellant's request for a new trial, finding all her guilt-phase claims meritless. It did grant Appellant a new penalty hearing based on its determination that her trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present any mental-health mitigating evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because none of the issues Appellant raised on appeal entitled her to a new trial, the order of the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. King" on Justia Law

The question presented to the Supreme Court in this case was whether a criminal defendant’s right to be present in the courtroom at every critical stage of his or her trial, including during the impaneling of a jury, categorically mandates the defendant’s personal ability to hear each venireperson who is questioned at sidebar during voir dire proceedings conducted by the court, his counsel, and the prosecuting attorney as to substantive issues. The Supreme Court concluded that it did not based upon the principle that a defendant’s right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his or her trial is not absolute, and that under certain circumstances, including where the defendant is physically present in the courtroom and is represented by counsel, the right to be present at every stage of trial is vindicated without the defendant’s being personally able to hear the questioning of each venireperson at sidebar. Because Appellant Christian Hunsberger was physically present in the courtroom during sidebar voir dire proceedings, was represented by counsel, and interacted with counsel during these proceedings, his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he had a right to be present at sidebar was "without arguable merit." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court denying relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Hunsberger" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether a Workers' Compensation employer's insurance carrier should be reimbursed from the Supersedeas Fund for specific payments made to a claimant prior to the ultimate grant of supersedeas. The question turned on whether the relevant payments constituted payments of "compensation" within the meaning of Section 443 of the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), 77 P.S. 999(a), or, as argued by Appellant Bureau of Workers' Compensation, whether the payments are not reimbursable because they constitute payment of legal costs associated with obtaining a claimant's third-party tort settlement under Section 319 of the WCA, 77 P.S. 671. After review, the Court found no language in either Section 443 or Section 319 that would transform the relevant payments into something other than compensation merely because the amounts of the payments were calculated to compensate the claimant for the costs of recovering the third-party settlement. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Commonwealth Court. View "Bureau of Workers' Comp, Aplt v. WCAB(Excelsior Ins.)" on Justia Law

Appellant Donte Thomas directly appealed his death sentence for first degree murder to the Supreme Court. On appeal, he argued prosecutorial misconduct, errors at trial and ineffective assistance of counsel as grounds for reversal. Following a review of the facts and trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded there was no misconduct, no errors by the trial court, and that Appellant received effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Appellant's sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Following several evidentiary hearings in this post-conviction capital case, the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (PCRA court) dismissed the petition filed by Appellant Jose Busanet pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. Appellant filed his PCRA petition on September 24, 2004, and amended it on December 14, 2004. Upon Appellant’s motion, the PCRA court judge, who had presided over Appellant’s trial, recused himself from the PCRA proceeding based on general comments the judge had made in an unrelated case, which referenced his frustration with cases involving drug dealing and gun violence in the City of Reading. A new PCRA court judge was assigned to the case. During the next few years, several different counsel withdrew their appearance due to conflicts of interest. Appellant filed amendments to his PCRA petition on September 14, 2007, and January 7, 2009. On February 7, 2011, the PCRA court entered an Order and Opinion, examining thoroughly each of Appellant’s several claims, and denying PCRA relief. In his direct appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, Appellant raised thirteen issues. Upon careful consideration of each of Appellant's issues raised on appeal, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed the PCRA Court's dismissal the PCRA petition. View "Pennsylvania v. Busanet" on Justia Law