Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In January 2010, Appellant James Finnecy was sentenced to a maximum term of two years’ imprisonment for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and theft by unlawful taking, as well as two consecutive terms of eighteen months’ probation for escape, resisting arrest, identity theft, and ten counts of forgery. In October 2011, Appellant was released from custody and placed on probation. He committed multiple probation violations over the next several months and also failed to complete a court supervised drug treatment program. The trial court ultimately revoked Appellant’s probation. In 2014, Appellant was sentenced to twelve to twenty-four months’ imprisonment, to be followed by five years’ probation. Appellant was again released from custody and paroled to a court supervised substance abuse treatment facility. Shortly thereafter, Appellant absconded from parole and committed numerous additional violations of his supervision. As a result, the Commonwealth filed a petition to revoke Appellant’s probation and parole, which was granted. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of twelve and one-half to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Relevant here, the court found Appellant ineligible for a sentence under the Pennsylvania Recidivism Risk Reduction Act (“RRRI Act”). The issue Appellant's case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether a single past conviction for violent crime demonstrated “history of present or past violent behavior” for purposes of the RRRI Act, thereby disqualifying an offender from eligibility for a reduced sentence. Before addressing this question, the Court first had to determine whether a trial court’s failure to impose a sentence under the RRRI Act implicated sentencing illegality. The Supreme Court held the trial court’s failure to sentence an eligible offender pursuant to the RRRI Act implicated sentencing illegality. The Court also found that a single prior conviction for a non-enumerated crime demonstrating violent behavior did not qualify as a history of past violent behavior under the Section 4503 of the RRRI Act. Accordingly, the Superior Court judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Finnecy" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review required the Court to revisit its relatively recent holding that the signature of a registered voter “may not be stricken from a nominating petition solely because the address set forth on the nominating petition is different from the address at which the signer is currently registered to vote.” Following the Court's unanimous decision in In re Vodvarka, 140 A.3d 639 (Pa. 2016), the General Assembly in October of 2019 enacted Act 77, which made significant changes to Pennsylvania’s Election Code, such as the advent of no-excuse mail-in voting. One lesser-known change effected by Act 77 was the amendment of 25 P.S. section 2868, which required a signer of a nominating petition to add certain information. Significantly, only one change was made to the statute by the amendment: the former requirement that a signer add his “residence” was replaced with a new requirement that he add the “address where he is duly registered and enrolled.” After careful review, the Supreme Court concluded this legislative change in statutory text displaced the Court's holding in Vodvarka pertaining to the address requirement. Furthermore, the Court concluded the statute as amended, plainly and unambiguously imposed a mandatory duty on a signer of a nominating petition to add the address where he or she was duly registered and enrolled, and that the failure to comply with this requirement exposes the signature to viable legal challenge. As the Commonwealth Court reached this same conclusion below, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In Re: Nom. s. of Major, R." on Justia Law

Appellee Anthony Shaw was tried jointly with a co-perpetrator for the 2009 attempted murder of Alex Adebisi. At the pretrial stage, Appellee’s counsel filed a notice of alibi. At trial, only one of two identified alibi witnesses in the notice was called by the defense to testify. During her cross-examination of the testifying witness, the prosecutor referred to the notice of alibi to impeach the alibi's veracity. Defense objected, arguing the notice was not the witness' statement. After the Commonwealth concluded the cross-examination, Appellee’s counsel asked for a sidebar conference and moved for a mistrial. After Appellee was convicted and an unsuccessful direct appeal was concluded, he lodged a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act, claiming he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to amend the alibi notice prior to trial to remove the reference to a non-testifying alibi witness. The PCRA court denied relief on the post-conviction petition, Appellee appealed, and the Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. With respect to trial counsel’s performance, the Superior Court found the alibi notice counsel had submitted failed to reflect his own contemporaneous understanding of the circumstances. And although counsel expressed a belief that an alibi witness could not be cross-examined with an alibi notice, the court referenced its own prior decisions which it read for the proposition that “it is well-established that an alibi notice can be used for impeachment purposes.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, agreeing with the Commonwealth that the matter should have been remanded to the post-conviction court for Appellee to be afforded the opportunity to create an evidentiary record to meet his burden of demonstrating the ineffectiveness, particularly in terms of the reasonable-basis criterion. "We also find that the Superior Court should have provided the post-conviction court with the opportunity to assess prejudice in the first instance. ... Although certainly it is possible that the jurors relied on the notice to discredit the defense... it is most appropriate for the PCRA court to pass, in the first instance, on whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of Appellee's trial would have been different had counsel correctly handled the alibi notice." View "Pennsylvania v. Shaw" on Justia Law

In the pendency of divorce proceedings, Appellee and her husband entered into agreement governing the shared custody of their five-year-old child. Appellee repeatedly and intentionally violated this custody agreement, eventually absconding with the child ultimately to Florida, where the child remained for forty-seven days separated from her father. Appellee claimed the father was abusive, her attempts to secure assistance from the local children and youth agency had been rebuffed, and she had no option but to remove the child from the father’s care. Appellee was apprehended and charged with interference with custody of children. At trial, the Commonwealth presented testimony from the father, a clinical psychologist, a social worker, and a detective to the effect that Appellee’s allegations were false and/or unfounded. Appellee said she had been advised by a nanny the child had disclosed an incident of offensive touching by the father, and that subsequently the child repeatedly made statements to Appellee personally which were indicative of abuse. Appellee also presented the nanny’s corroborative testimony, and her cousin attested the child had apprised her of inappropriate touching too. The Pennsylvania Legislature prescribed that a defendant was innocent of the crime of “interference with custody of children” when he or she believed that intrusive actions were necessary to spare the subject child from danger. Appellee was convicted as charged and sentenced; in post-conviction proceedings, the Superior Court reversed sentence and ordered a new trial. The Commonwealth contended that the belief element of the offense should have been construed to encompass only beliefs that were held reasonably. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found Commonwealth’s arguments "are too tenuous to be credited." The Superior Court judgment was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. H.D." on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act made inadmissible a a covertly obtained audio recording of Appellee Beth Ann Mason while she worked as a nanny in the home of the family that employed her. Because Appellee failed to demonstrate that she possessed a justifiable expectation that her oral communications would not be subject to interception by a recording device located in the children’s bedrooms, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Wiretap Act did not preclude the Commonwealth from introducing these recordings as evidence at Appellee’s trial for allegedly abusing the children in her care. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment, which held that the trial court properly suppressed the subject audio recording. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Mason" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the application of the statutory compulsory joinder rules, which generally require a prosecutor to pursue, in a single proceeding, all known charges against a defendant arising from a single criminal episode occurring within the same judicial district, subject to enumerated exceptions. In 2015, as the result of a traffic stop, Appellant Dewitt Johnson was arrested and charged with driving with a suspended license, possession with intent to deliver heroin (“PWID”), and knowing and intentional possession of heroin (“K&I”). Before the Traffic Division of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, he was found guilty, in absentia, of the summary traffic offense. The Municipal Court’s jurisdiction was capped at criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; because of this, the Commonwealth pursued the drug offenses in the common pleas court. Appellant moved to dismiss, contending the prosecution was required to try all of the offenses simultaneously, per the compulsory joinder requirements of Section 110 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. The Commonwealth conceded it was foreclosed from pursuing the K&I charge, because that crime, like the traffic offense, fell within the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth argued that PWID remained viable, since the Municipal Court had lacked jurisdiction over that offense. In this regard, the Commonwealth invoked Section 112(1) of the Crimes Code, which served as an exception to Section 110’s general prohibition. The Superior Court accepted this argument and affirmed with respect to PWID. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded the matter for dismissal of the PWID charge: "the Commonwealth must generally assure that known offenses are consolidated at the common pleas level, when they arise out of a single criminal episode and occur in the same judicial district." View "Pennsylvania v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In a probation revocation case, the trial court entered an order removing the District Attorney’s Office and appointing a private criminal-defense attorney to represent the Commonwealth as a “special prosecutor.” Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded the court lacked the authority to make such an appointment, the trial court’s order was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in this case to determine the propriety of raising a claim in a habeas corpus petition that the sentencing statute under which Appellant was sentenced was unconstitutionally vague, or if such a claim was properly considered an illegal sentence claim cognizable solely under the mandates of the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Appellant Ingram Moore was convicted by jury of first degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for the 1993 murder of Kevin Levy. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He filed a federal writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed as time barred. In April 2015, Appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum. Appellant’s petition lay dormant until he filed a Motion to Compel Disposition on March 12, 2016. Appellant then filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on April 15, 2016 raising a claim that his continued incarceration was illegal as the statute he was sentenced under was unconstitutionally vague for failing to give defendant notice that a sentence of life imprisonment meant without parole. A trial court ultimately dismissed Appellant’s petitions on May 31, 2017 “pursuant to the [PCRA].” Appellant appealed pro se. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal and held the trial court correctly viewed Appellant’s petitions for habeas relief as petitions for post-conviction relief under the PCRA. In making this determination, the Superior Court noted a writ of habeas corpus was properly considered a PCRA petition if the issue raised was cognizable under the PCRA. Appellant conceded that an issue cognizable under the PCRA must be brought through the PCRA’s procedures. Appellant asserted his claim that the statute he was sentenced under was void for vagueness was not a claim that fell within the specified claims available for relief under the PCRA and therefore was properly brought in a habeas petition. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding his arguments fell within the PCRA's purview. The trial court correctly dismissed his petition; the Superior Court's order was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this matter to determine whether the Department of Transportation (PennDOT) was precluded from suspending an individual’s driving privileges based on a DUI conviction, where there was a lengthy delay between the conviction and the time the driver was notified of the suspension. Under the facts of this case, the Court concluded the trial court’s finding – that Appellee would suffer prejudice if the suspension were to be imposed at this juncture – was supported by competent evidence of record, and moreover, it demonstrated that prejudice would follow from the fact of the delay itself. Additionally, there was no dispute that Appellee did not accrue any additional Vehicle Code violations after his predicate DUI conviction. The Court therefore agreed with the Commonwealth Court majority that a suspension at this late date will have lost much of its effectiveness with regard to its underlying legislative purposes, result in prejudice which can be attributed to the delay, and ultimately deny fundamental fairness. View "PennDOT Bureau of Driver Lic. v. Middaugh" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether a line of superior court cases changed the procedural requirements of Section 1106 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Code requiring restitution be set at the time of sentencing. Appellant Steven Cochran, II, briefly stayed at a vacation home owned by his grandparents. In late 2016, Appellant’s grandparents visited the home and found Appellant intoxicated. An altercation ensued, during which Appellant threatened and assaulted his grandmother, and deliberately destroyed various items of personal property. Also during the altercation, a fire was ignited, causing additional damage to the premises and personal property. Appellant was arrested and charged with terroristic threats, simple assault, two counts of criminal mischief, and three counts of harassment. At the beginning of the plea hearing, both counsel informed the trial court that the total restitution claimed exceeded $65,000.00, but that Appellant disputed whether he was responsible for that total amount because some of the destroyed or damaged property had belonged to him. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count each of terroristic threats, simple assault, and criminal mischief. In the non-restitution proceedings on June 29, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate terms of three to 23 months' incarceration, minus time served. A restitution hearing was set for August 28, 2017. Appealing the eventual amount of restitution ordered, Appellant objected to the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing more than 30 days had passed since the June 2017 order, and that the Commonwealth failed “to make a recommendation for restitution and the trial court failed to set restitution at the time of sentencing on June 29, 2017, as required by 18 Pa.C.S. 1106(c)(2).” A panel of the superior court agreed the trial court erred in failing to set restitution at the time of sentencing, reversed, and remanded fur resentencing. The Supreme Court determined that the superior court erroneously presumed that the “time of sentencing” for the purpose of section 1106 occurred solely on June 29, 2017. Because the final complete sentencing order was entered on September 15, 2017, the Supreme Court concluded Appellant had no basis to challenge the sentencing court’s jurisdiction under Section 1106 (c)(2). View "Pennsylvania v. Cochran II" on Justia Law