NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
|
|
- Lionel Perkins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID ROBERT KENNEDY Appellant No. 281 WDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order September 18, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 8, 2013 Appellant, David Robert Kennedy, appeals from the order entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his second petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ). 1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. On November 21, 2005, a jury convicted Appellant of first degree murder, and the court immediately sentenced him to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on February 26, On March 12, 2008, Appellant timely filed a counseled PCRA petition. On August 4, 2008, the PCRA court reinstated Appellant s right to file a petition for allowance of 1 42 Pa.C.S.A *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
2 appeal nunc pro tunc, which Appellant filed on August 18, On December 31, 2008, our Supreme Court denied the petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc. On February 19, 2009, Appellant timely filed a counseled PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On March 16, 2009, the court provided notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P The court denied PCRA relief on April 14, This Court affirmed the order on December 18, 2009, and our Supreme Court denied Appellant s petition for allowance of appeal on May 11, On May 23, 2012, Appellant filed the current pro se PCRA petition, raising multiple claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Appellant also asserted that the facts upon which his claims were based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. On June 1, 2012, the court provided Rule 907 notice. Appellant filed a pro se response on August 30, In it, Appellant argued that the time restrictions of the PCRA should not apply to the current petition: The facts upon which the claims of this petition are predicated were unknown to [Appellant]. This was not through lack of diligence, as [Appellant] repeatedly made requests pretrial for a copy of the discovery and throughout the appeal process requested a copy of both the trial transcript and the discovery. These requests were made to the courts as well as [Appellant s] attorneys. All requests were unanswered. There was no lack of diligence on the part of [Appellant]
3 It was not until the state appeals process moved to the federal courts that [Appellant], courtesy of the federal courts, received copies of all appeals made on his behalf. In those appeals, [Appellant] found the portions of the trial transcript and discovery that led to the issues of this petition. (Pro Se Response to Rule 907 Notice, filed 8/30/12, at 1). Ultimately, the court denied PCRA relief on September 18, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on October 19, The court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Preliminarily, we address the timeliness of this appeal. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Here, the court denied PCRA relief by order entered September 18, October 18, 2012 to file his notice of appeal. Thus, Appellant had until Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal on October 19, 2012, which appears to be untimely. Generally, an appellate court cannot extend the time for filing an appeal. Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 498 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 599 Pa. 691, 960 A.2d 838 (2008). Nonetheless, this general rule does not affect the power of the courts to grant relief in the 2 Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, a notice of appeal is considered filed on the date it was delivered to prison authorities for mailing. See Commonwealth v. Castro, 766 A.2d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2001). Here, the postmark attached to Appellant s pro se notice of appeal is dated October 19,
4 case of fraud or breakdown in the processes of the court. Id. A breakdown can occur when the trial court departs from the obligations specified in the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. Additionally, our rules of criminal procedure govern the denial of PCRA relief as follows: Rule 907. Disposition Without Hearing * * * (4) When the petition is dismissed without a hearing, the judge promptly shall issue an order to that effect and shall advise the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the right to appeal from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time limits within which the appeal must be filed. The order shall be filed and served as provided in Rule 114. Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(4). Pursuant to Rule 114, service shall be in writing by sending a copy to an unrepresented party by certified, registered, or first class mail addressed to the party s place of residence, business, or confinement. Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(B)(3)(a)(v). The docket entries shall contain the date of receipt in the clerk s office of the order, the date appearing on the order, and the date of service of the order. Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C). Instantly, the certified docket entries confirm that the clerk of courts filed the order denying PCRA relief on September 18, Nevertheless, the docket entries do not indicate the date of service. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C). Further, the certified record does not reveal whether the clerk of courts complied with Rule 114(B), as there is no evidence of the method of - 4 -
5 service. Appellant s notice of appeal states he did not receive a copy of the order denying PCRA relief until September 27, Absent more, we conclude a breakdown in the operations of the court excuses the apparent untimeliness of the instant appeal. Consequently, we will proceed with the appeal. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: WHETHER THE PROSECUTION S EGREGIOUS USE OF PROSECUTORIAL ABUSE AND MISCONDUCTS, INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY UNDERTAKEN, PREJUDICED APPELLANT TO THE POINT OF DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RECOGNIZING: THE PROSECUTION S DELIBERATE FAILURES TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND THE INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF SAID EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THROUGH THE UNCORRECTED FALSE TESTIMONY OF CHIEF WITNESSES (I.E. POLICE OFFICERS), THE PROSECUTION S ACKNOWLEDGED PRETRIAL SELECTIONS OF WHICH REPORTS WITNESSES WOULD OR WOULD NOT REVIEW, THE PRETRIAL (ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED) COUNSELING OF THOSE WITNESSES, AND THE SUPPRESSED/WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF BRADY CLAIMS, THE PROSECUTION S VOUCHING FOR DR. ROZIN, PORTRAYING AS FACT WHAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE, AND CONTINUOUS USE OF PREJUDICIAL OR INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS, WHICH PREJUDICED APPELLANT S FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS, THE PROSECUTION S CLOSING REMARKS, INFLAMMATORY AND PREJUDICING IN NATURE, AND NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE IN RECORD, WHICH SO - 5 -
6 PREJUDICED THE JURY THAT A VERDICT BASED ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT ACHIEVED, THE 28-YEAR PRETRIAL DELAY WHICH SO VIOLATED APPELLANT S DUE PROCESS THROUGH THE LOSS OF FAVORABLE EVIDENCE AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE LOSS OF FAVORABLE WITNESSES, ALLOWING THE PROSECUTION TO EGREGIOUSLY ABUSE [ITS] AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND INTEGRITY TO DENY DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL. WHETHER THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON ONE OR MORE OF APPELLANT S CLAIMS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. REGARDING THE RULING THAT THIS PETITION IS TIME- BARRED: WHETHER THE [PCRA] JUDGE ERRED IN HIS DECISION BY NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TIME SPENT BY APPELLANT ARGUING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (WHERE THE ISSUES OF THIS APPEAL FIRST CAME TO LIGHT), WHETHER THE [PCRA] JUDGE FAILED TO CONSIDER APPEAL AS ONE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE [PCRA] JUDGE FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUES ON APPEAL, THAT THEY ARE PROOF OF INNOCENCE AND HIDDEN BY THE EGREGIOUS USE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCTS, AND AS SUCH PROOF THERE IS NO TIME BAR FOR INNOCENCE. (Appellant s Brief at 1-2) (internal citation omitted). As an additional preliminary matter, we must determine whether Appellant timely filed his current PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 684, 982 A.2d - 6 -
7 1227 (2009). Pennsylvania law makes clear no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 575 Pa. 500, 837 A.2d 1157 (2003). The most recent amendments to the PCRA, effective January 16, 1996, provide that a PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1); Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa.Super. 2003). A judgment is deemed final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(3). The three statutory exceptions to the timeliness provisions in the PCRA allow for very limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1). To invoke an exception, a petition must allege and the petitioner must prove: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively
8 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). As such, when a PCRA petition is not filed within one year of the expiration of direct review, or not eligible for one of the three limited exceptions, or entitled to one of the exceptions, but not filed within 60 days of the date that the claim could have been first brought, the trial court has no power to address the substantive merits of a petitioner s PCRA claims. Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70, 77, 753 A.2d 780, 783 (2000). Instantly, the court sentenced Appellant on November 21, This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on February 26, Our Supreme Court denied Appellant s petition for allowance of appeal on December 31, 2008, and Appellant did not seek further review. Thus, Appellant s judgment of sentence became final ninety days later, on March 31, 2009, upon expiration of the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(3); U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13. Appellant filed his current PCRA petition on May 23, 2012, more than three years after his judgment of sentence became final. Accordingly, Appellant s prayer for relief was patently untimely. Appellant attempts to invoke an exception to the time restrictions of the PCRA, arguing the facts upon which his claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, Appellant contends he recently obtained trial transcripts from the federal courts after unsuccessful - 8 -
9 requests to the trial court and prior counsel. Appellant asserts he exercised due diligence by repeatedly requesting the transcripts throughout the pendency of his case. Appellant also insists he discovered the prosecutorial misconduct claims, which form the basis for the current pro se petition, only after reviewing the transcripts obtained from the federal courts. Under these circumstances, Appellant concludes the PCRA court should have considered the current petition timely filed. We disagree. The timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) requires a petitioner to demonstrate he did not know the facts upon which he based his petition and could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264 (2007). Due diligence demands that the petitioner take reasonable steps to protect his own interests. A petitioner must explain why he could not have obtained the new fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due diligence. This rule is strictly enforced. Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1080 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 607, 20 A.3d 1210 (2011) (internal citations omitted). The focus of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or a newly willing source for previously known facts. Commonwealth v. Lambert, 57 A.3d 645 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, Pa., 67 A.3d 795 (2013). Instantly, the certified record reveals Appellant s trial transcripts were - 9 -
10 filed on March 6, To the extent Appellant asserts that he made numerous unsuccessful requests to obtain the transcripts, the current PCRA petition and his response to the Rule 907 notice did not include any exhibits to confirm such requests. 3 Absent more, Appellant failed to prove he acted with due diligence. See Monaco, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa.Super. 2007) (holding petitioner s discovery of hearing transcript did not overcome PCRA time-bar where transcript was available for over 30 years, and petitioner provided no explanation why he could not have obtained transcript sooner with exercise of due diligence). Moreover, the trial transcripts do not contain any facts unfamiliar to Appellant, as he was present at trial. Therefore, Appellant s current claims are not based on new facts of the type contemplated by Section 9545(b)(1)(ii). See Lambert, supra. Thus, Appellant failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii). Based upon the foregoing, we conclude Appellant s current PCRA petition remains time-barred. See Bretz, 3 In his reply brief, Appellant attached a letter from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dated October 7, The letter acknowledged receipt of an October 2, 2011 letter from Appellant requesting copies of the transcripts. Nevertheless, this letter does not appear in the certified record. Consequently, we are unable to consider it. See Commonwealth v. Jordan, Pa., 65 A.3d 318 (2013) (reiterating that appellate courts may only consider facts which have been duly certified in record on appeal; item does not become part of certified record by simply copying it and including it in reproduced record)
11 supra; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court s dismissal of the petition. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Deputy Prothonotary Date: 8/8/
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 389 WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARSHA SCAGGS Appellant No. 389 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Order
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TYRONE GREEN Appellant No. 2471 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. KAREEM GEORGE, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 465 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CORDELL DUANE BROADUS, No. 1740 WDA 2012 Appellant Appeal from the PCRA
2018 PA Super 35 OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 20, Appellant, Edgar B. Murphy, Jr., appeals pro se from the post-conviction
2018 PA Super 35 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDGAR B. MURPHY, JR., Appellant No. 541 MDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 9, 2017 In the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EDMUND STARR Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 268 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FREDERICK MARKOVITZ, Appellant No. 1969 WDA 2012 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY BROWN, Appellant No. 2873 EDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL P. MINERD, No. 1926 WDA 2012 Appellant Appeal from the PCRA Order,
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ELIEZER PEREZ, Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : No. 1163 MDA 2012
2015 PA Super 173 OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 19, Appellant, Quawi Smith, appeals from the order entered in the
2015 PA Super 173 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. QUAWI SMITH Appellant No. 1892 EDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA Order June 27, 2014 In the Court of Common
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN BRADLEY PETERS, SR., Appellant No. 645 WDA 2012 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AMIN HALL Appellant No. 834 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY D. WILLIAMS Appellant No. 2428 EDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 44 MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE EUGENE EBERSOLE, JR., Appellant No. 44 MDA 2013 Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LAQUAN AMIR BROWN Appellant No. 1560 WDA 2014 Appeal from the
2014 PA Super 27. Appellant No. 794 WDA 2012
2014 PA Super 27 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. REGIS SESKEY Appellant No. 794 WDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order of May 1, 2012 In the Court of Common
2015 PA Super 96 OPINION BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 24, Appellant Kevin Wyatt appeals from the order of the Philadelphia
2015 PA Super 96 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEVIN WYATT Appellant No. 2343 EDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA Order July 21, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LAURENN HARVIN Appellant No. 2521 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 482 MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRY SIMONTON, JR., Appellant No. 482 MDA 2013 Appeal from the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee ANGEL PEREZ, v. Appellant No. 569 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM ERIC WEBB Appellant No. 540 EDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHURON BARNELL PORTER, Appellant No. 986 WDA 2015 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TYREE DEMETERIOU ANDERSON, Appellant No. 1518 WDA 2013 Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012
J-S70010-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD JARMON Appellant No. 3275 EDA 2012 Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ADAM EUGENE PITTINGER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1638 MDA 2017 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CRAIG SHELTON BROWN Appellant No. 3514 EDA 2013 Appeal from the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KYLE KEHRLI Appellant No. 2688 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. TODD ELVIS PUTMAN, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1380 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ODLEY LOUIS, Appellant No. 1125 MDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC SHAWN SMRCKA Appellant No. 111 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE EUGENE EBERSOLE, JR., Appellant No. 1843 MDA 2014 Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HALFPENNY MANAGEMENT CO. AND RICHARD CARR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMES D. SCHNELLER, Appellant No. 2095 EDA 2014
2018 PA Super 51 : : : : : : : : :
2018 PA Super 51 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. PHILIP LAWRENCE MORIARTY Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 780 MDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order April 25, 2017 In the Court
2016 PA Super 262. Appellant No MDA 2015
2016 PA Super 262 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HENRY L. WILLIAMS, Appellant No. 2078 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 16, 2015 In
2018 PA Super 31 : : : : : : : : :
2018 PA Super 31 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JEFFREY ALAN OLSON, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 158 WDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order December 22, 2016 In the Court of Common
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RAYMOND C. DASILVA, JR., Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 206 MDA 2017 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KENT NORRIS OWENS, Appellant No. 260 MDA 2015 Appeal from the
On October 22, 2012, Appellee filed a praecipe for entry of. default judgment in the amount of $132, That same day, the court
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: STATE RESOURCES CORP. Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SPIRIT AND TRUTH WORSHIP AND TRAINING CHURCH, INC. Appellant No.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LUIS RAMOS Appellant No. 2138 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL J. DOTSKO v. Appellant No. 2580 EDA 2015 Appeal from the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 932 WDA 2015
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDRE PACE, Appellant No. 932 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAIME OTERO Appellant No. 2771 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ESTATE OF THOMAS W. BUCHER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: WILSON BUCHER, : CLAIMANT : No. 96 MDA 2013 Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IRA NEAL GOLDBERG Appellant No. 732 MDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. : : HERMAN GUNTHER, : No. 1749 EDA 2014 : Appellant : Appeal from the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
J-S49034-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MATTHEW HOVEY Appellant No. 412 WDA 2012 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WESLEY EDWARD CHANCE, Appellant No. 1618 MDA 2015 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
J.A05038/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GERALD F. STRUBINGER, Appellant No. 1993 EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RALPH E. SMITH, Appellant No. 1229 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 284 EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HAKIM LEDBETTER, Appellant No. 284 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GARY W. WILLIAMS, v. Appellant No. 1812 MDA 2012 Appeal from the
2014 PA Super 34. Appellant No EDA 2012
2014 PA Super 34 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CLARENCE R. DAVIS, Appellant No. 3095 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 21, 2012 In
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TYWAN ADAMS Appellant No. 1658 WDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order October
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 GARY DUNSWORTH AND CYNTHIA DUNSWORTH, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellees v. THE DESIGN STUDIO AT 301, INC., Appellant No. 2071 MDA
COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO
COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO. 9-99-82 v. STACEY MILLER O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MAURICE L. STEVENS Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1119 EDA 2017 Appeal
COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Glenn, 2009-Ohio-375.] COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN EDWARD FLAMER, Appellant No. 2650 EDA 2018 Appeal from the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JERMAINE THOMPSON Appellant No. 870 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTOPHER L. LEISTER, Appellant No. 113 MDA 2015 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CODY GADD Appellant No. 49 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. : : DAMIEN MICHAEL SCHLAGER, : No. 1597 MDA 2012 : Appellant : Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN DOMENICO MARTONE, III, Appellant No. 1636 MDA 2014 Appeal
2018 PA Super 45. Appeal from the Order entered March 29, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No: CT
2018 PA Super 45 WILLIAM SMITH SR. AND EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN HEMPHILL AND COMMERCIAL SNOW + ICE, LLC APPEAL OF BARRY M. ROTHMAN, ESQUIRE No. 1351
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.R., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: J.R. : No. 3300 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Dispositional
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. TIMOTHY SHARP, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 139 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KAHLIL DAVIS, Appellant No. 2544 EDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WANDA LEVAN Appellant No. 992 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRELL DARNELL SMITH Appellant No. 1207 MDA 2014 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWABS, INC., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JORDAN R. STANLEY v. Appellant No. 1875 MDA 2015 Appeal from the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. JOHN CANNON, Appellee Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3847 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. : : SHAWN BISHOP, : No EDA 2012 : Appellant :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. : : SHAWN BISHOP, : No. 1205 EDA 2012 : Appellant : Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TYREEK DENMARK Appellant No. 722 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOSEPH P. PROSCENO, III, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, FORT WASHINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA CAMPUS Appellee No.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FELIX GARZON, Appellant No. 492 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RUBEN GONZALEZ Appellant No. 1077 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: GLADYS P. STOUT, DECEASED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: PLEASANT VALLEY MANOR : No. 545 EDA 2013 Appeal from
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHANE BERNARD VITKA, JR., Appellant No. 1985 WDA 2014 Appeal
STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Draper, 2011-Ohio-1007.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 10 JE 6 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, - VS - O P I N I O N THEODIS DRAPER,
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, No. CC
2004 PA Super 473 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellee : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : RUTH ANN REDMAN, : Appellant : No. 174 WDA 2004 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BOB POPE, Appellant No. 786 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 3, 2006
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 3, 2006 ANTONIO BONDS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 98-08055 Paula Skahan,
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : DAVID K. HOUCK, : : Appellant : No. 489 WDA 2015 Appeal from the
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 RAEDELLE FOSTER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL DOWNEY Appellee No. 1464 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment Entered
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PAUL J. PREISINGER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HEATHER FOX AND CONSTANCE J. LOUGHNER APPEAL OF: HEATHER FOX No. 18 WDA 2015 Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No MDA 2013
J-S40009-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LANCE PATRICK GREENAWALT, Appellant No. 1577 MDA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAIME JONES, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1916 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THE DESIGN STUDIO AT 301, INC. Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY AND CYNTHIA DUNSWORTH, Appellees No. 2070 MDA 2015 Appeal
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JEANNIE L. BLOUGH : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. : : DARIN L. MATKOSKEY, : No. 1030 WDA 2016 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMIL DABNEY Appellant No. 1447 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment
NON- PRECEDENTI AL DECI SI ON - SEE SUPERI OR COURT I.O.P
NON- PRECEDENTI AL DECI SI ON - SEE SUPERI OR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AVIS LEE, Appellant No. 1891 WDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AKEEM JOHNSON Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2880 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: APPEAL OF DISAPPROVAL OF PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: JOHN YOCOLANO No. 230 WDA 2018 Appeal
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA B.B. In re J.K., SEALED Petitioner No. 2022 C.D. 2014 Submitted April 24, 2015 v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY,
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MARY BUSH Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS LAWRENCE v. Appellee No. 1713 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered April 26,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 09-318 Opinion Delivered March 17, 2011 LARRY DONNELL REED Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee PRO SE APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2006-1776, HON. BARRY
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HELEN LEWANDOWSKI AND ROBERT A. LEWANDOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DECEASED HELEN LEWANDOWSKI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JEREMIAH KAPLAN, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MORRIS J. KAPLAN, TIMONEY KNOX, LLP, JAMES M. JACQUETTE AND GEORGE RITER,