Grounds for Seeking Post Conviction Relief

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Grounds for Seeking Post Conviction Relief"

Transcription

1 3 Grounds for Seeking Post Conviction Relief 3.01 A Violation of the Constitution of Pennsylvania or the Constitution or Laws of the United States ( 9543(a)(2)(i)) [1] Introduction Although the Act requires a defendant seeking post conviction relief on grounds of constitutional error 1 to establish that the error so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place, 2 the Act has been applied where the claim does not directly implicate the adjudication of guilt or innocence. 3 Most allegations of violations of rights protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the United States 4 are raised and decided in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 5 The claim will be linked to an ineffectiveness claim to avoid a finding that the constitutional claim was waived because it was not raised 1. Following the 1995 amendments, claims based upon a violation of state statutes are not cognizable under section 9543(a)(2)(i). The amendments to the section permit a defendant to raise a violation of federal law as a basis for PCRA relief Pa.C.S. 9543(a)(2)(i) (1998). 3. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2007). 4. Commonwealth v. Quaranibal, 763 A.2d 941 (Pa.Super. 2000) (defendant failed to establish that denial of rights under Vienna Convention resulted in prejudice). 5. See, for example, Commonwealth v. Correa, 664 A.2d 607 (Pa.Super. 1995) (as prosecution s exaggerated rhetoric deprived defendant of fair trial, defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to prosecution s statements); Commonwealth v. Kilgore, 719 A.2d 754 (Pa.Super. 1998) (counsel ineffective for failing to assert rights under Article I, Section 8 of Pennsylvania Constitution). 17

2 The Post Conviction Relief Act at trial or on appeal 6 unless the claim involves a non-waivable issue. 7 If the court concludes that the constitutional claim is meritless, the related ineffectiveness claim also fails under the first prong of the standard governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 8 Waiver is not an issue where the defendant asserts a constitutional right newly recognized by the United States Supreme Court to apply retroactively. 9 Prior to the repeal of section 9543(a)(2)(v) by the 1995 amendments to the Act, some claims of constitutional error were considered under that section, which provided post conviction relief for a violation of the United States Constitution which would require the granting of federal habeas corpus relief. 10 Claims considered cognizable under this provision of the Act included a claim that counsel was ineffective in advising the defendant to reject a plea offer, 11 a claim that a defendant s disproportionately heavy sentence in comparison to other similarly situated defendants violated equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, 12 a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim, 13 and a Fifth Amendment claim of improper references to defendant s post arrest silence. 14 Such claims must now be considered under section 9543(a)(2)(i), which requires the defendant to establish that the claimed constitutional 6. Commonwealth v. Christy, 656 A.2d 877, 881 (Pa. 1995) (ineffectiveness will excuse waiver at trial and on appeal because the defendant has constitutional right to counsel in such a proceeding). See also Commonwealth v. Eaddy, 614 A.2d 1203 (Pa.Super. 1992); Commonwealth v. Pitts, 580 A.2d 352 (Pa.Super. 1990). 7. An issue of double jeopardy involving the legality of the sentence imposed is nonwaivable. Commonwealth v. Staples, 471 A.2d 847, 850, n.5 (Pa.Super. 1984) ( because the illegality of sentence is not a waivable issue, we need not discuss the issue of prior PCHA counsel s ineffectiveness ). See also Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 639 A.2d 1235 (Pa.Super. 1994). 8. The three-prong standard governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987). In Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995), the court considered a number of constitutional violations asserted as a basis for post conviction relief. In finding the claims lacked merit, the court also found that the related ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed, since counsel could not be considered ineffective for failing to assert a meritless claim. See also Commonwealth v. DeHart, 650 A.2d 38, 42 (Pa. 1994). 9. Commonwealth v. Miller, 888 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2005) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded) Pa.C.S. 9543(a)(2)(v) (1998). 11. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 688 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 1997). In Commonwealth ex rel. Dadario v. Goldberg, 773 A.2d 126, 131 (Pa. 2001), the court held that to the extent Boyd suggested that ineffectiveness claims that arise from the plea-bargaining process are not eligible for review under section 9543(a)(2)(ii), it is overruled. 12. Commonwealth v. Gaerttner, 649 A.2d 139 (Pa.Super. 1994). 13. Commonwealth v. Eaddy, 614 A.2d 1203 (Pa.Super. 1992). 14. Commonwealth v. Lassen, 659 A.2d 999 (Pa.Super. 1995). 18

3 Grounds for Seeking Post Conviction Relief 3.01 violation undermined the truth-determining process, or under section 9543(a)(2)(ii), as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 15 In Commonwealth v. Chester, 16 the Supreme Court held that because the penalty phase hearing of a capital case involves the presentation of evidence and a determination of facts pursuant to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, it is a truth-determining process within the meaning of sections 9543(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of the Post Conviction Relief Act. 17 Capital cases, the court concluded, simply present another facet to the common understanding of guilt or innocence. 18 [2] Facially cognizable constitutional claims [a] Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence The prosecution s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland 19 may, in light of the circumstances of the case, undermine the truth-determining process entitling a defendant to post conviction relief. To establish a violation of Brady, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecution willfully or inadvertently withheld exculpatory 20 or impeachment evidence. 21 In addition, the defendant must establish that the evidence was favorable to him or her and that the evidence was material. In determining materiality, a court must consider the cumulative or collective effect of the suppressed evidence. 22 Evidence is material under Brady if there exists a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the trial would have been different See Commonwealth ex rel. Dadario v. Goldberg, 773 A.2d 126 (Pa. 2001). 16. Commonwealth v. Chester, 733 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1999). 17. See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008), and Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2007), for a discussion of scope of the PCRA and cases holding PCRA not applicable where claim does not directly implicate the adjudication of guilt or innocence A.2d at See also Commonwealth v. Faulkner, 735 A.2d 67 (Pa. 1999). Where the PCRA court dismisses all guilt-related claims but grants a new sentencing hearing, appellate review of the PCRA court s decision denying guilt phase relief should precede the imposition of a new sentence by the trial court. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 780 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2001). 19. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 20. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 986 A.2d 808, (Pa. 2009). 21. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 677 (1985). 22. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). See also Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009). For a discussion of Kyles/Brady cumulation analysis, see Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 42 A.3d 983 (Pa. 2012). 23. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, (1995). See also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 727 A.2d 1089, 1094 (Pa. 1999) ( to be entitled to a new trial for failure to disclose evidence affecting a witness credibility, the defendant must demonstrate that the reliability of the witness may well be determinative of his guilt or innocence ). 19

4 The Post Conviction Relief Act In Commonwealth v. Galloway, 24 the prosecution failed to turn over to the defendant information concerning the fact that a prosecution witness s recollection was hypnotically refreshed prior to trial. Hypnosis evidence, the court concluded, constituted Brady information because it goes to the credibility of the witness and, under the circumstances of the case, the evidence was material 25 because there was the probability that had the jury been permitted to hear the testimony, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Because the truth-determining process had been undermined by the prosecution s failure to disclose the evidence, 26 the defendant was entitled to post conviction relief. In Commonwealth v. Strong, 27 the defendant requested and obtained in advance of his PCRA hearing all relevant documents contained in the prosecution s file. The district attorney made available several letters that revealed that the prosecution and co-defendant s counsel had discussed an agreement with the co-defendant prior to the defendant s trial. Notwithstanding the defendant s specific request prior to trial, the information was not made available to the defendant. In reversing the PCRA court, the Supreme Court found that the record established the existence of an understanding between the Commonwealth and the codefendant that he would be treated with leniency in exchange for his testimony against the defendant. The court concluded that an ironclad agreement between the co-defendant and prosecution was not necessary to establish a violation of Brady. In addition, the court concluded that the withheld evidence was material because the credibility of the co-defendant was decisive to the jury s finding as to the defendant s guilt. Where the withheld Brady evidence would not have affected the outcome of the trial in light of other evidence linking the defendant to the crime, the defendant was not entitled to relief, since the prosecution s failure to disclose the information did not undermine the truth-determining process Commonwealth v. Galloway, 640 A.2d 454 (Pa.Super. 1994). 25. The hypnotized witness was the only witness who testified that the defendant had been the triggerman in one of the shootings in question. 26. In Galloway, the court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to relief on grounds that hypnosis evidence was newly discovered evidence (section 9543(a)(2)(v)), since the evidence goes solely to the witness s credibility. For a discussion of newly discovered evidence as grounds for post conviction relief, see section 3.05 in this chapter. 27. Commonwealth v. Strong, 761 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 2000). 28. Commonwealth v. Buehl, 658 A.2d 771, 776 (Pa. 1995) (prosecution s case would not have been affected even if the two prosecution witnesses were totally discredited by withheld evidence concerning potential bias). See also Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 719 A.2d 242, 259 (Pa. 1998); Commonwealth v. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538 (Pa.Super. 2012). 20

5 Grounds for Seeking Post Conviction Relief 3.01 There is no violation of Brady where the prosecution fails to turn over to the defense evidence that is readily obtainable by the defense 29 or evidence that is inadmissible. 30 [b] Other constitutional violations In addition to Brady violations, other facially cognizable due process claims 31 include a Batson violation, 32 the prosecution s failure to prove the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, 33 and prejudicial, improper remarks by prosecutors during closing argument. 34 A closing argument violates due process if its unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury so that a true verdict cannot be rendered because the existence of bias and hostility makes it impossible to weigh the evidence in a neutral manner. 35 While the prosecution can present its case to the jury 29. Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293, 305 (Pa. 1999); Commonwealth v. Miller, 746 A.2d 592, 600 (Pa. 2000). 30. Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 857 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Dennis, 950 A.2d 945, 968 (Pa. 2008). 31. A constitutional claim is considered waived under the Act if the claim could have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in a prior post conviction proceeding. See chapter 4, section A claim of ineffectiveness of counsel at trial or on direct appeal excuses waiver. Consequently, as noted above, claims discussed in this section must be presented to the PCRA court in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See section 3.02[2][a] in this chapter. But see Commonwealth v. Basemore, 744 A.2d 717, 733 (Pa. 2000). 32. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 985 (Pa. 2008) (Batson claim within ambit of PCRA); Commonwealth v. Uderra, 862 A.2d 74, 87 (Pa. 2004) (where no contemporaneous Batson objection was raised at trial, a post-conviction petitioner may not rely on a prima facie case under Batson, but must prove actual, purposeful discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence in addition to all other requirements essential to overcome the waiver of the underlying claim ). See also Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 259 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409, 434 (Pa. 2009); Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594, 609 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA relief denied where prosecution offered specific explanations for peremptory challenges and explanations were both credible and race-neutral); Commonwealth v. Jones, 951 A.2d 294, 300 (Pa. 2008) (declining to overrule Commonwealth v. Uderra as in conflict with Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707, (3d Cir. 2004)). 33. Commonwealth v. Hanes, 579 A.2d 920, 924 (Pa.Super. 1990); Commonwealth v. Perlman, 572 A.2d 2 (Pa.Super. 1990) (evidence sufficient to support conviction). 34. Commonwealth v. Lassen, 659 A.2d 999, 1011 (Pa.Super. 1995) (although claim cognizable, defendant not entitled to post conviction relief where prosecutor s remarks did not meet test set forth in Commonwealth v. Green, 581 A.2d 544, 561 (Pa. 1990), and Commonwealth v. Johnson, 533 A.2d 994, 997 (Pa. 1987)). See also Commonwealth v. Christy, 656 A.2d 877, 885 (Pa. 1995) (prosecutor s remarks not outside permissible boundaries of oratorical flair). 35. Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352, 365 (Pa. 1995); Commonwealth v. Baker, 614 A.2d 663, 671 (Pa. 1992); Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 515 A.2d 531 (Pa. 1986). 21

6 The Post Conviction Relief Act with logical force and vigor, 36 due process is violated if the prosecution indulges in personal assertions of the defendant s guilt either by direct statement or indirectly by figure of speech. 37 The prosecution is given greater leeway in presenting argument during the penalty phase of a capital case because the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable. 38 A claim that the trial court deprived the defendant of due process when it denied him the opportunity to present evidence of a history of mental illness at a competency hearing presented a facially cognizable claim but post conviction relief was denied because any error was harmless and not prejudicial and, in light of other evidence in the case, did not undermine the truth-determining process. 39 A due process violation was not established where the record did not indicate the number of uniformed officers present at trial or any disturbance caused by their presence. 40 The Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of defendants who are mentally retarded. A defendant seeking post conviction relief may establish by expert testimony mental retardation under the definitions of either the American Psychiatric Association or the American Association of Mental Retardation. 41 The court is not required to hold a hearing unless an adequate proffer has been made concerning mental retardation and the court determines an issue of material fact exists Commonwealth v. Cronin, 346 A.2d 59, 62 (Pa. 1975) (quoting commentary to the ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function (App. Draft 1971)). 37. Id. at Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d at 365 (Pa. 1995). 39. Commonwealth v. Christy, 656 A.2d 877, 884 (Pa. 1995). 40. Commonwealth v. Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110, 1138 (Pa. 2008). 41. Commonwealth v. Miller, 888 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2005) (setting forth proper procedure for resolution of an Atkins claim of mental retardation on collateral review); Commonwealth v. Crawley, 924 A.2d 612, 615 (Pa. 2007) (rejecting broader definition of mental retardation than standard set out in Miller); Commonwealth v. Gibson, 925 A.2d 167, 170 (Pa. 2007) (defendant must establish limited or subaverage intellectual functioning, significant adaptive limitations, and age of onset prior to eighteenth birthday); Commonwealth v. Miller, 951 A.2d 322 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Williams, 61 A.3d 979 (Pa. 2013) (affirming PCRA court s finding that defendant had satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence the three-prong test set out in Miller); Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 58 A.3d 62 (Pa. 2012) (approving use of factors in Ex Parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), that relate to the adaptive functioning prong of the Miller/Atkins test and finding PCRA court abused its discretion in denying consideration of the Commonwealth s new evidence relating to the intellectual and adaptive function element of Miller/Atkins). 42. Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4, 25 (Pa. 2012). 22

7 Grounds for Seeking Post Conviction Relief 3.01 A Fifth Amendment claim was found to satisfy section 9543(a)(2)(i) where the defendant, while incarcerated, was compelled under subpoena to give testimony without receiving warnings as to his rights to remain silent and to be represented by counsel. 43 A defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he was faced with the choice of pleading guilty or going to trial with a lawyer who had not sought suppression of evidence and did not want to go to trial. 44 Where the defendant seeks to waive trial counsel, PCRA relief will be granted where the trial court does not conduct a comprehensive onthe-record waiver colloquy 45 or fails to inform the defendant in the waiver colloquy of the elements of the crime 46 or the permissible range of sentences for the crimes charged. 47 A request to proceed pro se may be denied where the defendant does not make a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation. 48 [3] Claims not implicating truth-determining process A defendant was not denied due process in conjunction with the proportionality review 49 required by 42 Pa.C.S. 9711(h)(3)(iii) (deleted). In Commonwealth v. Banks, 50 the court held that such review is not an adversarial part of the trial or sentencing procedure in death penalty cases and, as such, is not a critical stage of the criminal proceeding in which the rights of confrontation and cross-examination attach. The truth-determining process was not implicated by an allegation that the defendant was denied the opportunity to read and comment on his pre-sentence report, 51 or where sentencing was delayed following the defendant s guilty plea. 52 A general due process claim did not entitle the defendant to relief since there was no showing how the claimed constitutional 43. Commonwealth v. Nelson, 574 A.2d 1107 (Pa.Super. 1990). 44. Commonwealth v. Lasko, 14 A.3d 168, 173 (Pa.Super. 2011). 45. Id.; Commonwealth v. Houtz, 856 A.2d 119, 124 (Pa.Super. 2004). 46. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645, 655 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Lasko, 14 A.3d 168, 173 (Pa.Super. 2011). 47. Commonwealth v. Owens, 750 A.2d 872 (Pa.Super. 2000). 48. Commonwealth v. Davido, 868 A.2d 431, 438 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Faulk, 21 A.3d 1196 (Pa.Super. 2011) (holding defendant had failed to clearly state his desire to proceed pro se and noting no right to hybrid representation). 49. Although the legislature deleted the requirement of proportionality review, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court continues to undertake a proportionality review of death sentences in cases where the sentence of death was imposed prior to June 25, See Commonwealth v. Gribble, 703 A.2d 426 (Pa. 1997). 50. Commonwealth v. Banks, 656 A.2d 467 (Pa. 1995). 51. Commonwealth v. Tanner, 600 A.2d 201, 205 (Pa.Super. 1991), app. denied, 608 A.2d 25 (Pa. 1992). 52. Commonwealth v. Leasa, 759 A.2d 941 (Pa.Super. 2000). 23

8 The Post Conviction Relief Act violation undermined the truth-determining process, 53 nor was the truthdetermining process implicated by a claim that the PCRA court delayed in deciding a petition for post conviction relief. 54 The Superior Court has held that if a claim does not implicate the truth-determining process, it must be determined whether the claim was cognizable on traditional habeas corpus review. Only where the claim does not implicate the truth determining process and is not of a type that was cognizable on traditional habeas corpus review will it not be cognizable under the PCRA. 55 A defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he was represented at trial by an attorney who was on inactive status for failure to pay the annual fee required by Pa.R.D.E. 219, 56 nor was a defendant denied his right to counsel at a critical stage when the jury, outside the presence of counsel, heard a playback of a portion of the trial testimony Commonwealth v. Laskaris, 595 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Super. 1991); see also Commonwealth v. Puksar, 951 A.2d 267, 293 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA does not recognize miscarriage of justice as a distinct, stand-alone constitutional claim). 54. Commonwealth v. Granberry, 644 A.2d 204 (Pa.Super. 1994). 55. Commonwealth v. Ginglardi, 758 A.2d 193, 197 (Pa.Super. 2000) (Rule 1100 claim not cognizable under traditional habeas corpus review). 56. Commonwealth v. Jones, 829 A.2d 345 (Pa.Super. 2003); Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa.Super. 2003). 57. Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1272 (Pa.Super. 2008) (also rejecting claim that defendant had a right to be present during playback of portion of trial testimony). 24

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : No. CR : v. : : CRIMINAL DIVISION ROGER MITCHELL RIERA, : Petitioner : OPINION AND ORDER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : No. CR : v. : : CRIMINAL DIVISION ROGER MITCHELL RIERA, : Petitioner : OPINION AND ORDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : No. CR-1459-2011 : v. : : CRIMINAL DIVISION ROGER MITCHELL RIERA, : Petitioner : OPINION AND ORDER After a jury

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC06-539 MILFORD WADE BYRD, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [April 2, 2009] This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying Milford Byrd

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID COIT Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 561 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered

More information

CHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE

CHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE Brady Issues and Post-Conviction Relief San Francisco Training Seminar July 15, 2010 CHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE By J. Bradley O Connell First District Appellate Project, Assistant

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

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 Appellee : : v. : : MICHAEL McLAUGHLIN, : : Appellant : No. 1965 EDA 2014

More information

Serving the Law Enforcement Community and the Citizens of Washington

Serving the Law Enforcement Community and the Citizens of Washington WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS & POLICE CHIEFS 3060 Willamette Drive NE Lacey, WA 98516 ~ Phone: (360) 486-2380 ~ Fax: (360) 486-2381 ~ Website: www.waspc.org Serving the Law Enforcement Community

More information

Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole

Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole 2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-25-2012 Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket

More information

Commonwealth v. McCalvin COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PURNELL McCALVIN, Defendant

Commonwealth v. McCalvin COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PURNELL McCALVIN, Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PURNELL McCALVIN, Defendant 411 PCRA Relief: Evidentiary Hearing; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Criminal Conspiracy with a government agent. 1. Pennsylvania Rule of

More information

Marcus DeShields v. Atty Gen PA

Marcus DeShields v. Atty Gen PA 2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-10-2009 Marcus DeShields v. Atty Gen PA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1995 Follow

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 24802 GERALD ROSS PIZZUTO, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. Moscow, April 2000 Term 2000 Opinion No. 93 Filed: September 6,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 93-714 Opinion Delivered June 3, 2010 JESSIE LEE BUCHANAN Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No KENNETH WAYNE MORRIS, versus

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No KENNETH WAYNE MORRIS, versus UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 04-70004 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk KENNETH WAYNE MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 26 MDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 26 MDA 2013 J-S53024-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL RYAN BUDKA Appellee No. 26 MDA 2013 Appeal

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No [PUBLISH] IN RE: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-16362 FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT December 11, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK ANGEL NIEVES DIAZ, Petitioner.

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014

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. CEASAR TRICE Appellant No. 1321 WDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1945-2016 : v. : Notice of Intent to Dismiss : PCRA Petition without Holding RYAN HAMILTON, : An Evidentiary

More information

Rule 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases.

Rule 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases. POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS 234 Rule 900 CHAPTER 9. POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases. 901. Initiation of Post-Conviction Collateral Proceedings.

More information

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2014

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2014 Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2013-330 JULY TERM, 2014 In re Stanley Mayo } APPEALED FROM: } }

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1 Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be

More information

The facts presented during Dreese s non-jury trial were as follows. On. the evening of July 11, 2014, Dreese, his son Seth, Dreese s ex-girlfriend

The facts presented during Dreese s non-jury trial were as follows. On. the evening of July 11, 2014, Dreese, his son Seth, Dreese s ex-girlfriend NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID F. DREESE Appellee No. 1370 MDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA

More information

Manifest injustice is that state of affairs when an inmate. comes to realize that his/her due process rights have been

Manifest injustice is that state of affairs when an inmate. comes to realize that his/her due process rights have been Key Concepts in Preventing Manifest Injustice in Florida Adapted from Florida decisional law and Padovano, Philip J., Florida Appellate Practice (2015 Edition) Thomson-Reuters November 2014 Manifest injustice

More information

Overview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure. Basic Concepts. What is Proof (Evidence) David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx.

Overview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure. Basic Concepts. What is Proof (Evidence) David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx. Overview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx Basic Concepts PresumptionofInnocence:BurdenonStateto erase presumption by proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Absolute

More information

In the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia

In the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia In the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia Magistrate Court Case No. 13 M 3079-81 Circuit Court Appeal No. State of West Virginia - PLAINTIFF Police Officers Vernon and Yost Kanawha County

More information

Commonwealth v. Hernandez COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABINO HERNANDEZ, JR., DEFENDANT

Commonwealth v. Hernandez COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABINO HERNANDEZ, JR., DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABINO HERNANDEZ, JR., DEFENDANT Criminal Law: PCRA relief based upon an illegal sentence; applicability of Gun and Drug mandatory minimum sentence. 393 1. A Defendant is

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 09/21/2017 Page: 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14027-P KEITH THARPE, WARDEN, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, versus

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

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. JASON MCMASTER Appellant No. 156 EDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA

More information

American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary

American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary acquit: affidavit: alibi: amendment: appeal: arrest: arraignment: bail: To set free or discharge from accusation; to declare that the defendant is innocent

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL Commonwealth v. Lazarus No. 5165, 5166, 5171, 5172-2012 Knisely, J. January 12, 2016 Criminal Law Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Guilty Plea Defendant not entitled

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:16-cr-00010-BMM Document 80 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 14 BRYAN T. DAKE Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney=s Office P.O. Box 3447 Great Falls, MT 59403 119 First Ave. North, #300 Great Falls, MT

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD WILLIAMS Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 275 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order January

More information

involving separate victims in six other cases. 1 The court denied the motions, and Barto

involving separate victims in six other cases. 1 The court denied the motions, and Barto IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : No. CR-1173-2010 : vs. : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : GREGORY BARTO, : Appellant : 1925(a) Opinion OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER IN COMPLIANCE

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session KENTAVIS JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-14-251 Donald H. Allen, Judge

More information

supreme aourt of Jnlriba

supreme aourt of Jnlriba L supreme aourt of Jnlriba Nos. 74,973 & 76,860 JOHNNY WILLIAMSON, Petitioner, VS. RICHARD L. DUGGER, Respondent. JOHNNY WILLIAMSON, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [November 10, 19941 PER CURIAM.

More information

Criminal Law Table of Contents

Criminal Law Table of Contents Criminal Law Table of Contents Attorney - Client Relations Legal Services Retainer Agreement - Hourly Fee Appearance of Counsel Waiver of Conflict of Interest Letter Declining Representation Motion to

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : NO. 216 CR 2010 : 592 CR 2010 JOSEPH WOODHULL OLIVER, JR., : Defendant : Criminal Law

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 91 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 91 1 Article 91. Appeal to Appellate Division. 15A-1441. Correction of errors by appellate division. Errors of law may be corrected upon appellate review as provided in this Article, except that review of capital

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT February 6, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court MONSEL DUNGEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. AL ESTEP;

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY. STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS ) Case No. ) ) Defendant )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY. STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS ) Case No. ) ) Defendant ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS ) Case No. ) ) Defendant ) PETITION TO ENTER PLEA OF GUILTY The defendant represents to the Court: 1. My

More information

Robert Morton v. Michelle Ricci

Robert Morton v. Michelle Ricci 2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-8-2009 Robert Morton v. Michelle Ricci Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1801 Follow

More information

Anthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr

Anthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr 2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-25-2011 Anthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3727

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANA EVERETT YOUNG Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1119 EDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012

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. MARVIN WOODS Appellant No. 1367 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA

More information

Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights

Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights You do not need your computers today. Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights How have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments' rights of the accused been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?

More information

A Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

A Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXPERIENCE A Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP I. Introduction For nearly fifty years, the United States Supreme Court s decisions in Brady v.

More information

STATE OF OHIO JAMAR TRIPLETT

STATE OF OHIO JAMAR TRIPLETT [Cite as State v. Triplett, 2009-Ohio-2571.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91807 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMAR TRIPLETT

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC92496 RICKEY BERNARD ROBERTS, Appellant, Cross-Appellee, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee, Cross-Appellant. [December 5, 2002] PER CURIAM. REVISED OPINION Rickey Bernard Roberts

More information

Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee

Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee The Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee proposes to amend Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 1561, 1701, and proposes new rule, Pa.R.A.P. 1765.

More information

Strickler v, Greene 119 S. Ct (1999)

Strickler v, Greene 119 S. Ct (1999) Capital Defense Journal Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 12 Fall 9-1-1999 Strickler v, Greene 119 S. Ct. 1936 (1999) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlucdj Part of the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Hughbanks, 159 Ohio App.3d 257, 2004-Ohio-6429.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, v. HUGHBANKS, Appellant. APPEAL

More information

No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. TOFOREST ONESHA JOHNSON, Petitioner, STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent.

No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. TOFOREST ONESHA JOHNSON, Petitioner, STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent. No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TOFOREST ONESHA JOHNSON, Petitioner, V. STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals PETITION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Scott v. Cain Doc. 920100202 Case: 08-30631 Document: 00511019048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit

More information

favorable to the defense and material to the outcome of either the guilt-innocence or sentencing phase of a trial.

favorable to the defense and material to the outcome of either the guilt-innocence or sentencing phase of a trial. 4.5 Brady Material A. Duty to Disclose Constitutional requirements. The prosecution has a constitutional duty under the Due Process Clause to disclose evidence if it is favorable to the defense and material

More information

United States Supreme Court Term: Cases Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure

United States Supreme Court Term: Cases Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure 2004-2005 United States Supreme Court Term: Cases Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure Robert L. Farb Institute of Government Fourth Amendment Issues Walking Drug Dog Around Vehicle While Driver Was Lawfully

More information

No. In The. Supreme Court of the United States. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner. vs.

No. In The. Supreme Court of the United States. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner. vs. No. In The Supreme Court of the United States COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner vs. RICKY MALLORY, BRAHEEM LEWIS and HAKIM LEWIS, Respondents On Petition For A Writ of Certiorari To the United States

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : VS. : NO. : :

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : VS. : NO. : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : VS. : NO. : : GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY EXPLANATION OF DEFENDANT S RIGHTS You or your attorney

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012

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. KHARIS BRAXTON Appellant No. 1387 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

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. ALFRED ALBERT RINALDI Appellant No. 2080 MDA 2015 Appeal from

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY TERRY MALIN, ) Defendant, ) ) v. ) I.D. # 0608022475B ) ) STATE OF DELAWARE. ) Date Submitted: Motion for Postconviction Relief:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DEMARCUS O. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 15-CV-1070-MJR vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) REAGAN, Chief

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION Hill v. Dixon Correctional Institute Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION DWAYNE J. HILL, aka DEWAYNE HILL CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1819 LA. DOC #294586 VS. SECTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN GRAHAM, a.k.a. JOHN BOY PATTON, and VINE RICHARD MARSHALL, a.k.a. RICHARD VINE

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : v. : No. 289 CR 2008 : MERRICK STEVEN KIRK DOUGLAS, : Defendant : Jean A. Engler, Esquire, Assistant

More information

ADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1

ADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1 ADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1 1 RULE 3.1 - MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS (a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. YAMIL RUIZ-VEGA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 137 MDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Jon Stuart

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Jon Stuart KENNETH RAY SHARP, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-006 / 05-1771 Filed June 25, 2008 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice OLAN CONWAY ALLEN OPINION BY v. Record No. 951681 SENIOR JUSTICE RICHARD H. POFF June 7, 1996 COMMONWEALTH

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1995

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1995 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1995 MORRIS ALLEN RAY, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9501-CC-00021 ) Appellant, ) ) ) BEDFORD COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CHARLES LEE STATE OF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Scaife v. Falk et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-02530-BNB VERYL BRUCE SCAIFE, v. Applicant, FRANCIS FALK, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 09a0281n.06 Filed: April 15, No

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 09a0281n.06 Filed: April 15, No NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 09a0281n.06 Filed: April 15, 2009 No. 06-5532 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RICKY BELL,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS: CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-TRP. -against- Indictment No.: ,

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS: CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-TRP. -against- Indictment No.: , SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS: CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-TRP PRESENT: HON. SEYMOUR ROTKER Justice. -------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner-Appellant, No v. Western District of Oklahoma MARTY SIRMONS, Warden,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner-Appellant, No v. Western District of Oklahoma MARTY SIRMONS, Warden, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 20, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT TONY E. BRANTLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 09-6032

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P J-S11027-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRY JOHNSON Appellant No. 414 EDA 2015 Appeal from

More information

MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016

MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016 MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016 SIMS v. STATE, NO. 2015-KA-01311-COA http://courts.ms.gov/images/opinions/co115582.pdf Topics: Armed robbery - Ineffective assistance of

More information

Attorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial. records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense counsel which prevented their

Attorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial. records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense counsel which prevented their Counsel s Obligation to Advise a Defendant on the Right to Testify By: Mark M. Baker 1 Attorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS vs. : CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY The defendant agrees to enter a plea of guilty to the following

More information

Test Bank for Criminal Evidence 8th Edition by Hails

Test Bank for Criminal Evidence 8th Edition by Hails Test Bank for Criminal Evidence 8th Edition by Hails Link full download of Test Bank: https://digitalcontentmarket.org/download/test-bank-forcriminal-evidence-8th-edition-by-hails/ CHAPTER 2: The Role

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus. WARDEN, Respondent Appellee.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus. WARDEN, Respondent Appellee. Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 04/03/2018 Page: 1 of 10 KEITH THARPE, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14027-P versus Petitioner Appellant, WARDEN, Respondent Appellee.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2005 JOSEPH W. JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-26684 Bernie Weinman,

More information

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15A04-1712-PC-2889 DANIEL BREWINGTON, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court 2, No. 15D02-1702-PC-3,

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA03-566 Filed: 18 May 2004 1. Confessions and Incriminating Statements--motion to suppress--miranda warnings- -voluntariness The trial court did not err

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA , -8899, -8902, v , -9669

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA , -8899, -8902, v , -9669 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA DORIAN RAFAEL ROMERO, Movant/Petitioner, Case Nos. 2008-cf-8896, -8898, -8899, -8902, v. -9655, -9669 THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C R I M I N A L

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C R I M I N A L Commonwealth v. Smith No. 5933-2006 Knisely, J. August 28, 2013 Criminal Law Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) Serial PCRA Petition Jurisdiction Timeliness Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Pa.R.Crim.P.

More information

Smith v. Robbins 120 S. Ct. 746 (2000)

Smith v. Robbins 120 S. Ct. 746 (2000) Capital Defense Journal Volume 12 Issue 2 Article 9 Spring 3-1-2000 Smith v. Robbins 120 S. Ct. 746 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlucdj Part of the Criminal

More information

2017 PA Super 363. BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and MOULTON, J. OPINION BY MOULTON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2017

2017 PA Super 363. BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and MOULTON, J. OPINION BY MOULTON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2017 2017 PA Super 363 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ABDUL MURRAY Appellant No. 3010 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 30, 2015 In the Court

More information

STRUCTURE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL: (FELONY)

STRUCTURE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL: (FELONY) TRIAL: (FELONY) STRUCTURE OF A CRIMINAL Crimes are divided into 2 general classifications: felonies and misdemeanors. A misdemeanor is a lesser offense, punishable by community service, probation, fine

More information

OPINION AFFIRMING ORDER OF TRIAL COURT ON CLAIM OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

OPINION AFFIRMING ORDER OF TRIAL COURT ON CLAIM OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF MURPHY v. STATE 2012 OK CR 8 Case Number: PCD-2004-321 Decided: 04/05/2012 PATRICK DWAYNE MURPHY, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.! Cite as: 2012 OK CR 8,! LUMPKIN, J.: OPINION AFFIRMING

More information

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2005.

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2005. VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2005. Christopher Scott Emmett, Petitioner, against Record No.

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 57 EDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 57 EDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD DOUGLAS JANDA Appellant No. 57 EDA 2014 Appeal from the

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No PABLO MELENDEZ, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No PABLO MELENDEZ, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 03-10352 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 29, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk PABLO MELENDEZ, JR., Petitioner

More information

CARVEL GORDON DILLARD

CARVEL GORDON DILLARD March 3, 2017 9:00 am CARVEL GORDON DILLARD v. JEFF PREMO S064028 June 6, 2014 12:16 PM IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CARVEL GORDON DILLARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marion County Circuit

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: : and -vs- : : OPINION. For Defendant-Appellant:

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: : and -vs- : : OPINION. For Defendant-Appellant: [Cite as State v. Jester, 2004-Ohio-3611.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83520 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION WILLIE LEE

More information

AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and

AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING,  ANALYSIS TO: and LFC Requester: AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, EMAIL ANALYSIS TO: LFC@NMLEGIS.GOV and DFA@STATE.NM.US {Include the bill no. in the email subject line, e.g., HB2,

More information

Post Conviction Proceedings - Waiver - When a petitioner fails to file an Application for Leave to Appeal following an Alford plea, his right to

Post Conviction Proceedings - Waiver - When a petitioner fails to file an Application for Leave to Appeal following an Alford plea, his right to Post Conviction Proceedings - Waiver - When a petitioner fails to file an Application for Leave to Appeal following an Alford plea, his right to raise the issue in a Petition for Post Conviction Relief

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004 MICHAEL DWAYNE CARTER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 77242 Richard

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2009

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2009 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2009 RONNIE JACKSON, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 06-05479 John

More information

TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE FORMS ANNOTATED

TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE FORMS ANNOTATED TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE FORMS ANNOTATED 1.1 SURETY S AFFIDAVIT TO SURRENDER PRINCIPAL Order By Daniel L. Young PART ONE STATE PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER 1. BAIL 1.2 SURETY S AFFIDAVIT TO SURRENDER PRINCIPAL CURRENTLY

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2001 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-7-2001 Wenger v. Frank Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 99-3337 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 26, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT KEISHA DESHON GLOVER, Petitioner - Appellant, No.

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 41

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 41 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 41 Court of Appeals No. 12CA1223 El Paso County District Court No. 95CR2076 Honorable Leonard P. Plank, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information