Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the appellant, Cletus Rivera, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the killing of Reading Police Officer Scott Wertz. The incident occurred when Officers Wertz and Eddinger, working in plainclothes, responded to a disturbance and gunfire in a parking lot. Rivera, identified as the shooter, was pursued by Officer Wertz, who was subsequently shot and killed by Rivera. Rivera claimed self-defense, stating he did not know Wertz was a police officer. The jury convicted Rivera, and the death sentence was imposed based on aggravating circumstances, including the victim being a peace officer on duty.Rivera's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2009, and his petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. Rivera's first Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition was also denied, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finding no merit in his claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations related to a jailhouse informant, Jason Ott.In 2017, Rivera filed a second PCRA petition, citing newly discovered evidence from federal court proceedings that allegedly supported his previous claims about Ott's credibility and the existence of an undisclosed agreement between Ott and the Commonwealth. The PCRA court denied this petition, concluding that the new evidence was not material to Rivera's guilt or punishment and that his trial counsel's performance did not prejudice the outcome.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, currently reviewing the case, vacated the PCRA court's order and remanded the case for further analysis. The Court directed the PCRA court to independently determine whether Rivera's claims met the newly discovered facts or governmental interference exceptions to the PCRA's time bar and whether they complied with the filing requirements. The Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdictional issues must be independently assessed, regardless of the parties' agreement on the timeliness of the petition. View "Commonwealth v. Rivera" on Justia Law

In August 2021, Michael Yard’s infant son died from blunt-force trauma to the head while Yard was the sole caregiver. The child had also suffered broken ribs weeks earlier. Yard was charged with first-degree murder and other offenses in April 2022 and was denied bail by a Magisterial District Judge. At a preliminary hearing, evidence including an autopsy report and a 911 call was presented, and all charges were bound over to the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas.Yard petitioned for bail, citing a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Commonwealth v. Talley, which established a unique standard of proof for denying bail under the state Constitution. The bail court initially set bail at $200,000 with conditions but later vacated this decision, interpreting Talley to require live testimony rather than a "cold record." The Superior Court vacated the bail order and remanded for further proceedings. Yard then filed for nominal bail under Rule 600, which was granted by the bail court, setting bail at $1.00 with conditions.The Commonwealth appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction. The Court held that the proof/presumption limitation in Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not apply to the life-offense exception to the right to bail. Therefore, when a defendant is charged with an offense carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the Constitution categorically precludes release on bail. The Court vacated the bail court’s order granting nominal bail and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Commonwealth v. Yard" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree murder of an unborn child, and two counts of endangering the welfare of children. The crimes occurred in July 2020, when the appellant fatally shot Sydney Parmalee and Kaylee Lyons. Sydney was found dead in an apartment with a gunshot wound to her head, and Kaylee was found dead under similar circumstances later that month. The appellant was the father of both women’s children and was present at the scenes of both murders. He initially claimed Sydney’s death was a suicide but later admitted to killing both women.The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death for Kaylee’s murder, life imprisonment for Sydney’s murder, and life imprisonment for the murder of Kaylee’s unborn child. The jury found one aggravating circumstance for Kaylee’s murder, which was that the appellant had been convicted of another offense punishable by death (Sydney’s murder). The appellant’s post-sentence motion was denied, leading to this direct appeal.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of sentence. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for first-degree murder, as the appellant used a deadly weapon on vital parts of the victims’ bodies, demonstrating malice and specific intent to kill. The court also upheld the conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, noting that the appellant left his son alone in the apartment after killing Kaylee.The court rejected the appellant’s argument that his spontaneous confession should have been suppressed, ruling that it was a voluntary statement not prompted by police questioning. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of a new trial based on the weight of the evidence. Finally, the court concluded that the death sentence was not the product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor and was supported by the evidence of the aggravating circumstance. View "Commonwealth v. Anderson" on Justia Law

In September 2007, Donte Thomas was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the killing of Tyreese Gaymon. Thomas was also convicted of carrying a firearm on public streets, recklessly endangering another person, and conspiracy, though no sentences were imposed for these convictions. The murder occurred in February 2006, while Gaymon was standing on a street corner. Multiple witnesses identified Thomas as the shooter. Thomas was arrested in April 2006 and admitted to knowing Kareem Glass, who was awaiting trial for the murder of Gaymon’s cousin. Thomas denied shooting Gaymon but admitted to smuggling a cell phone into prison for Glass.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Thomas’ conviction and sentence. Thomas then filed a timely petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in October 2013, which he amended multiple times. The PCRA court held several hearings over two and a half years and ultimately dismissed Thomas’ petition in May 2023. Thomas appealed this dismissal.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed Thomas’ claims, which included allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Thomas argued that his trial counsel failed to consult with him adequately, investigate potential alibi witnesses, and object to prejudicial statements. He also claimed that the prosecution induced false testimony and withheld exculpatory evidence. The court found that Thomas’ counsel had met with him multiple times and that the potential alibi witnesses were either not credible or unavailable. The court also determined that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not deprive Thomas of a fair trial.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal of Thomas’ petition, concluding that Thomas failed to prove his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The court found no abuse of discretion in the PCRA court’s rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Thomas" on Justia Law

James Berry was convicted of sexually abusing two young family members. The court found that Berry had no prior convictions or juvenile adjudications, resulting in a prior record score of zero. However, the sentencing court imposed a sentence significantly above the standard range, citing Berry’s arrest record as a factor. Berry appealed, arguing that considering his arrest record, which did not result in convictions, was improper.The Superior Court affirmed the sentencing court’s decision, stating that a sentencing court may consider prior arrests as long as it recognizes that these arrests did not result in convictions. The court believed that Berry’s arrest record was relevant to his amenability to rehabilitation and the protection of the public.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that a sentencing court may not consider a defendant’s prior arrests that did not result in convictions. The court emphasized that prior arrests are not probative of a defendant’s character or likelihood of recidivism and are not relevant under the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code. The court noted that allowing prior arrests to influence sentencing would undermine the intent of the sentencing guidelines and the defendant’s prior record score.The Supreme Court vacated Berry’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without considering his prior arrest record. The court did not address the constitutional question of due process, as the case was resolved based on existing legal precedents regarding the irrelevance of prior arrests in sentencing. View "Commonwealth v. Berry" on Justia Law

On December 30, 2018, Phillip Walters reported his girlfriend, Hayley Lorenzen, missing. Lorenzen had recently moved into Walters' apartment. Walters claimed that after staying up late the previous night, he found Lorenzen missing the next morning. He contacted her father and then the police. On January 9, 2019, Gabel Bell, who had a prior relationship with Walters, informed the police that Walters had killed Lorenzen. Bell detailed that Walters had strangled Lorenzen and disposed of her body in a river. Lorenzen's remains were found on July 20, 2019, leading to Walters being charged with first-degree murder, strangulation, and abuse of a corpse.The Wyoming County Court of Common Pleas convicted Walters, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Walters appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Dr. Gary Ross, the pathologist, who concluded that Lorenzen's cause of death was "strangulation by history" based solely on Bell's account, without physical evidence. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the pathologist's reliance on case history was permissible.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and found that Dr. Ross' testimony did not meet the requisite standard of being offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Dr. Ross admitted that his conclusion was based solely on Bell's statements and not on any objective medical findings due to the advanced decomposition of Lorenzen's body. The court held that this testimony improperly bolstered Bell's credibility, encroaching on the jury's role in determining witness credibility. Consequently, the court vacated Walters' judgment of sentence and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Walters" on Justia Law

Thomas E. Bold, Jr. was found unconscious behind the wheel of his legally parked car in a mall parking lot. The car's engine was running, and the headlights were on. When roused by Officer Thomas Gelnett, Bold appeared intoxicated and admitted to drinking at a nearby bar. He intended to sleep in his car until he was fit to drive. Bold was arrested for DUI and refused a blood test at a medical facility. Consequently, PennDOT suspended his license for 18 months due to his refusal.Bold appealed the suspension in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. During the hearing, Officer Gelnett admitted there was no evidence that Bold had driven the car while intoxicated. The court initially upheld the suspension but later reversed its decision, finding no reasonable grounds to believe Bold was in control of the vehicle's movement. The court cited the case Solomon v. PennDOT, which found insufficient grounds for suspicion when a suspect was found sleeping in a parked car with the engine running.The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Bold was in actual physical control of the vehicle. The court relied on past cases where the presence of a driver in a running vehicle was deemed sufficient for reasonable grounds. However, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the circumstances did not provide reasonable grounds to believe Bold was operating or in actual physical control of the vehicle's movement. The court emphasized that the implied consent law requires some objective evidence of control over the vehicle's movement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's ruling, siding with Bold. View "Bold v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

On December 3, 2017, Yuguang Lin and Ruan “Katie” Wenting were robbed by three masked men who took their belongings and forced entry into their apartment, stealing money, cigarettes, and cigars. The police tracked Lin’s stolen cell phone to a vehicle where they found Shaquan Lewis and Raheem Stevenson (Appellant) along with the stolen items. Appellant was charged with robbery, burglary, and criminal conspiracy.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County held a jury trial where Appellant decided to testify. Before he took the stand, his counsel made an oral motion in limine to exclude a 2005 burglary conviction, arguing its remoteness. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the conviction admissible. Appellant then preemptively disclosed the conviction during his testimony. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to eight to sixteen years of incarceration followed by ten years of probation. Appellant’s post-sentence motion challenging the admissibility ruling was denied, and he appealed to the Superior Court.The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Appellant forfeited his right to challenge the admissibility of the prior conviction by introducing it himself. The court relied on Commonwealth v. Conner and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ohler v. United States, which held that a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction cannot claim error on appeal.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and disagreed with the Superior Court. It held that a defendant does not waive the right to appeal a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction by preemptively introducing the evidence following an adverse in limine ruling. The court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Commonwealth v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

The appellant, Michael John Parrish, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and received two death sentences. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed his judgment of sentence in 2013. In 2014, Parrish filed a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County. The PCRA court denied Parrish’s petition twice, and on both occasions, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remanded the case back to the PCRA court for further proceedings.The PCRA court denied Parrish's petition for a third time. Parrish appealed again, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remanded the case back to the PCRA court once more. Parrish then decided to withdraw his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to consult with him about his direct appeal rights. The PCRA court granted Parrish's request to withdraw the claim and dismissed it. Parrish appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the PCRA court's directive to Parrish to file another Rule 1925(b) statement was superfluous. The court also found that the Commonwealth and the court itself were significantly hampered in their ability to assess Parrish’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to the lack of a PCRA court record or ruling on these claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remanded the case back to the PCRA court to further develop the record and consider Parrish’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Commonwealth v. Parrish" on Justia Law

The case involves Rashaan Londale Greer, who was convicted of first-degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license. After his conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court and his appeal denied by the Supreme Court, Greer filed a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed several amended petitions before withdrawing her appearance. Greer's second PCRA counsel, Anthony J. Tambourino, filed another amended PCRA petition. After a hearing, the PCRA court denied the amended petition. Tambourino filed a timely notice of appeal and complied with the PCRA court’s order to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.Before the establishment of a briefing schedule, Tambourino filed an application for remand, asserting that Greer had sent him a letter requesting a remand to allow Greer to raise claims of Tambourino’s ineffectiveness. The Superior Court deferred the application for remand to the merits panel and directed Tambourino to file a brief. The Superior Court, in an unpublished memorandum opinion, vacated the PCRA court’s order and remanded the case to the PCRA court. The Superior Court directed the PCRA court to appoint new counsel to develop a record and address any issues Greer had with Tambourino’s stewardship.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court's order and remanded to that Court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Supreme Court held that when a represented petitioner seeks to raise claims against his current counsel while his petition is pending on appeal, an appellate court must remand the case to the PCRA court to have an on-the-record colloquy with the petitioner about his right to counsel, his inability to proceed through hybrid representation, and how he wishes to proceed. The Supreme Court found that the Superior Court erred in ordering a remand without directing the PCRA court to have such an on-the-record discussion. View "Commonwealth v. Greer" on Justia Law