Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

In the case before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, challenged the Chester County Court of Common Pleas' ruling that the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was unconstitutional. The appellee, George Torsilieri, had been convicted of sexual offenses and was subject to SORNA's registration and notification requirements. Torsilieri argued that SORNA's presumption that individuals who commit sexual offenses pose a high risk of committing additional sexual offenses was an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption violating due process. He also contended that SORNA's requirements constituted criminal punishment, which served as the basis for various constitutional challenges.The lower court agreed with Torsilieri, finding that the presumption was not universally true and that the registration and notification requirements were punitive. The court declared Subchapter H of SORNA unconstitutional, and the Commonwealth appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that Torsilieri failed to establish that SORNA's irrebuttable presumption was constitutionally infirm. The court also concluded that Torsilieri failed to demonstrate that SORNA constituted criminal punishment. Therefore, the court rejected Torsilieri's subsidiary constitutional challenges and reinstated his duty to comply with SORNA. View "Commonwealth v. Torsilieri" on Justia Law

The case involves Marcus Womack, who was arrested in 2017 following a search warrant executed at a residence in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. The search revealed that Womack had been selling drugs from the location, and he was found in possession of a large sum of money, drugs, and a stolen firearm. On the same day, a criminal complaint was filed against Womack, charging him with nine offenses. Unable to post bail, Womack remained in custody. Subsequent investigations revealed that Womack's drug enterprise extended beyond Huntingdon County, leading to the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and a statewide investigating grand jury. In 2018, a second criminal complaint was filed against Womack, charging him with twenty-eight offenses based on evidence gathered during the grand jury investigation.The trial court denied Womack's motion to dismiss the second complaint under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1), which requires a trial to commence within 365 days from the date the complaint is filed. Womack's motion to dismiss the first complaint on the same grounds was granted. Womack was found guilty of several offenses in a bench trial on the second complaint and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 39 to 90 years’ imprisonment. He appealed to the Superior Court, arguing that the computation of time for Rule 600 purposes should have been based on the filing date of the first complaint. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying relief. The court applied the test from Commonwealth v. Meadius, which requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate due diligence between the period in which the complaints were filed, establish that the filing of the second complaint was necessitated by factors beyond its control, and show that its actions were not an attempt to circumvent or manipulate the speedy trial requirements. The court found that the Commonwealth met these requirements, and therefore, the Rule 600 clock began when the second complaint was filed. View "Commonwealth v. Womack" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed a case involving Kevin Dowling, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Dowling was initially charged with robbery, indecent assault, and attempted rape of Jennifer Myers, who identified him as her assailant. Two days before his trial, Myers was found dead in her art gallery. Dowling was subsequently charged with her murder. At trial, the prosecution argued that Dowling killed Myers to prevent her from testifying against him. The prosecution presented evidence including a video of Dowling’s fabricated alibi, a letter in which he confessed to attacking Myers, and testimony from several witnesses. Dowling was convicted and sentenced to death.Dowling later filed a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the accuracy of a receipt from a store where a witness claimed to have seen him on the day of the murder. He also claimed that the prosecution violated his due process rights by not disclosing cash register journals from the store, which would have shown that the time on the receipt was correct. The PCRA court granted Dowling a new trial, but the Commonwealth appealed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the PCRA court's decision, concluding that Dowling failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had his counsel conducted further investigation or had the prosecution disclosed the register journals. The court also found that the false testimony of a police officer about the time on the receipt could not have affected the judgment of the jury, given the substantial independent evidence incriminating Dowling in Myers’ murder. View "Commonwealth v. Dowling" on Justia Law