Garwood v. Ameriprise Fin.

In Garwood v. Ameriprise Fin., the Superior Court held that the Garwoods waived their claims on appeal. Four of the claims were waived because they were not included in the 1925(b) Statement. The Court ruled that the Garwoods engaged in “appellate gamesmanship” by swapping their weight of the evidence issue, which they alleged in the … Read more

Commonwealth v. Betts

In Commonwealth v. Betts, the Superior Court set forth the proper procedure for criminal defendants who wish to allege that their attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during PCRA proceedings in the Courts of Common Pleas. Defendants are obliged to raise their claims in response to the lower courts’ notice of intent to dismiss pursuant … Read more

United States v. Jabateh

In United States v. Jabateh, the 3rd Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions for immigration fraud and perjury. While the 3rd Circuit agreed with the defendant that the government did not charge him with fraud in his immigration documents, only with orally lying about those documents, his failure to raise this argument at trial significantly altered the scope of review, … Read more

Satiro v. Maninno

In Satiro v. Maninno, the Superior Court found the pro se appellant’s claim waived as a result of filing a 29-issue statement of matters complained of on appeal that made it impossible for the trial court to give a comprehensive analysis of the issues.

Commonwealth v. Wolfel

In Commonwealth v. Wolfel, which was an interlocutory appeal, the PA Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and ruled, by failing to challenge the suppression court’s explicit invocation of that provision before the Superior Court, the Commonwealth waived its challenge to the defendant’s failure to raise a claim under Article I, Section 8.

Temple v. Providence Care Ctr.

In Temple v. Providence Care Ctr., the PA Supreme Court held that a trial court has the authority to halt proceedings and sua sponte order a mistrial only where there is “exceedingly clear error” that results in “manifest injustice,” notwithstanding the would-be moving party’s failure to preserve the issue.

Commonwealth v. Vo

In Commonwealth v. Vo, the PCRA petitioner was represented by counsel during the proceedings in the lower court, but a new attorney entered in the appeal of the denial of the PCRA petition. The new counsel raised issues of ineffective assistance of prior PCRA counsel. The Superior Court detailed an often-conflicting body of law and … Read more

Commonwealth v. Johnson

In Commonwealth v. Johnson, an en banc panel of the Superior Court overruled Commonwealth v. Creese, which had required each notice of appeal to list only one docket number. This case, along with Commonwealth v. Larkin show the Superior Court at its worst–creating, changing and abridging rules that have nothing to do with the justice, seeking the … Read more

Carr v. Michuk

More than one month after a defense verdict in a non-jury trial, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc. The trial court denied the motion, claiming that the plaintiff did not show he was diligent in filing the motion. The Superior Court reversed after finding that the prothonotary … Read more

Commonwealth v. Starr

The defendant entered guilty pleas to certain charges in the Allegheny County Sex Offender Court and received a probation tail to his sentence. One condition of his probation was that he was not permitted to possess a device that was capable of accessing the internet. The defendant was subsequently repeatedly caught with cell phones with … Read more