Commonwealth v. Crawford

In Commonwealth v. Crawford, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the appellant failed to raise a substantial question in challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. The appellant is 82 years old and is a Tier IIII registrant under Megan’s Law, meaning he must comply with certain conditions of Megan’s Law for life. He was … Read more

Commonwealth v. Snyder

In Commonwealth v. Snyder, Appellant appealed the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of corruption of minors and related offenses. On appeal, he made four claims of error. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the convictions. As to the sentence, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court ruled: … Read more

Commonwealth v. Shreffler

In Commonwealth v. Shreffler, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found all of the appellant’s claims were waived. First, the Court held that the appellant failed to preserve one issue for review by not including it in his statement of matters complained of on appeal. Then, the Court held that his failure to assure that the pre-sentence … Read more

United States v. Raia

In United States v. Raia, the Third Circuit reviewed the sentence imposed after the defendant was convicted of bribery-related offenses for offering cash payments to voters during his political campaign for city council. At sentencing, the Government sought an aggravating-role enhancement under Section 3B1.1 of the Guidelines and an obstruction of justice enhancement under Section … Read more

United States v. Yusuf

In United States v. Yusuf, an opinion consisting of consolidated appeals, the government challenged the sentences of two defendants imposed after guilty pleas. As part of their plea agreements, they each agreed not to argue for a sentence outside the range recommended by the Guidelines. On appeal, the government argued that both defendants breached their … Read more

Commonwealth v. Moore

In Commonwealth v. Moore, a criminal defendant filed a petition decades after his conviction. He claimed that the life-without-parole sentence he is serving violates his due process rights because the sentencing statute is vague. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether that claim is a challenge to the legality of a sentence. If it is, it … Read more

Commonwealth v. Rosario

In Commonwealth v. Rosario, the defendant appealed his convictions of attempted murder and related charges. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed as to the convictions but vacated the judgment of sentence. The defendant claimed that the trial court should have suppressed a gun and argued that a 16-year-old could not consent to the police’s search of … Read more

United States v. Prophet

In United States v. Prophet, the defendant, Maximus Prophet, appealed the District Court’s denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the motion, he challenged the sentencing court’s application of a two-point Guidelines enhancement for distribution of child pornography. The 3rd Circuit affirmed, holding that Amendment 801, which revised … Read more

United States v. Aguirre-Miron

In United States v. Aguirre-Miron, the Third Circuit found plain error when the District Court failed to group certain closely related counts, as required by the Sentencing Guidelines. The presentence report did not group the defendant’s convictions for production of child pornography with convictions for receipt and possession. At sentencing, the District Court adopted the … Read more

United States v. Senke

In United States v. Senke, the defendant challenged his conviction, raising four issues. First, he contended that the District Court should have inquired into his motions regarding trial counsel’s performance. Second, he asserted that the District Court erred when it failed to verify that he discussed the presentence report with counsel. Third, the defendant took … Read more