Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This matter began with a challenge to the nomination petition of Robert Jordan, a candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for the office of State Representative of the 165th Legislative District. Objector Fred Runge sought to remove Jordan from the ballot for the May 17, 2022 primary election on the ground that Jordan had moved into the district less than a year before the November 8 general election and therefore could not satisfy the residency requirements set forth in Article II, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Commonwealth Court found Objector’s claim non-justiciable and dismissed his challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Given the need to resolve the appeal expeditiously to provide notice to the parties and election administrators, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision in a per curiam Order dated April 19, 2022. The Court also directed the Secretary of the Commonwealth to remove Jordan's name from the ballot, finding that by a preponderance of the evidence, Jordan had not lived in the 165th Legislative District for at least one year preceding the general election. The Court published this opinion to explain its ruling. View "In Re: Nom. Robert Jordan" on Justia Law

Appellee Ryan Pownall, a former Philadelphia Police Officer was charged with killing David Jones by gunfire while on duty in his capacity as a police officer. Anticipating Pownall might pursue at trial a peace officer justification defense under 18 Pa.C.S. §508, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (“DAO”), on behalf of the Commonwealth, filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking to preclude the trial court from using Suggested Standard Jury Instruction (Crim) §9.508B, which largely tracked Section 508. The DAO argued that since the justification statute supposedly violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), so too must the standard jury instruction based on the statute. The trial court disagreed, concluding the DAO’s pretrial motion, by itself, was “insufficient to establish the unconstitutionality of Section 508[.]” Moreover, the court believed the DAO’s suggested remedy — proposing that it rewrite several disjunctive “ors” within the statute to conjunctive “ands” — was an “inappropriate” request for it to “judicially usurp the legislative function of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and rewrite Section 508 out of whole cloth.” For those reasons it denied the DAO’s request to certify the case for interlocutory appeal. When the DAO appealed anyway, the superior court quashed, reasoning the trial court’s order was not collateral and did not substantially handicap or terminate the DAO’s prosecution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the superior court erred in quashing the appeal. Because the Supreme Court concluded it did not, the judgment was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Pownall" on Justia Law

Appellant Mark Prinkey caimed his sentence resulted from a prosecutor’s unconstitutionally vindictive decision to pursue a mandatory minimum term of years. Proceeding from the general principle that a sentence was unlawful if the sentencing court lacks the legal authority to impose that sanction, Pennyslvania law recognized four broad types of legality challenges. The issue this appeal presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s review was whether a particular type of claim constituted a challenge to the legality of the sentence, such that it was cognizable under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA): (1) a claim that a sentence was imposed pursuant to a facially unconstitutional sentencing statute; (2) an assertion that statutory preconditions to the court’s sentencing authority were not present; (3) a challenge alleging a violation or nonfulfillment of a substantive, constitutional restriction upon the court’s authority to impose the sentence; and (4) an argument that the statutory support for the conviction is void ab initio. In this case, the Court held that a challenge to a sentence as presumptively vindictive fell within the third category of legality challenges and, thus, was cognizable under the PCRA. View "Pennsylvania v. Prinkey" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s review centered on a challenge to the lifetime registration requirement of the Revised Subchapter H of Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), and whether that requirement was waived because Appellant Shaune Thorne, Sr. did not raise such challenges at the time of his sentencing or in a post-sentence motion but, instead, raised them for the first time in his brief to the Superior Court. After careful review, the Supreme Court concluded Appellant did not waive his Apprendi-based and cruel and unusual punishment challenges to the lifetime registration requirement set forth in Revised Subchapter H by raising them for the first time in his brief to the Superior Court, because such claims implicated the legality of a sentence and, therefore, could not be waived. Further, for purposes of clarification, the Court expressly disapproved Commonwealth v. Reslink, 257 A.3d 21 (Pa. Super. 2020) to the extent that it unnecessarily limited a sexual offender’s ability to raise constitutional challenges to Revised Subchapter H by requiring that those challenges be raised before the trial court. View "Pennsylvania v. Thorne" on Justia Law

In 2013, while in the Navy, Appellee A.L. had intercourse with the adult victim when her ability to consent was impaired by alcohol. He was charged with sexual assault under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Appellee was tried by general court-martial, with a panel of service members acting as fact-finders. The panel returned a verdict of guilty. Appellee was sentenced to sixty days’ confinement, a reduction in rank, and a dishonorable discharge. He appealed to the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and sentence. After his discharge from the Navy, Appellee moved to Pennsylvania. He registered with the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) as a sex offender subject to registration under Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). The PSP determined Appellee’s crime triggered a Tier III registration obligation. Appellee appealed that designation, arguing PSP’s action was adjudicative and not merely ministerial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed appeal in this matter to determine whether sexual assault as defined under the Uniform Code of Military Justice was comparable to sexual assault as defined under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code so as to make Appellee a lifetime SORNA registrant. The Supreme Court concluded the military statute under which Appellee was convicted effectively defined two crimes, and PSP lacked a valid foundation to discern which of the two formed the basis for the military panel’s finding of guilt. Therefore, Appellee’s court-martial conviction could not be the basis for his classification as a Tier III registrant. View "A. L. v. PA State Police" on Justia Law

On November 17, 2017, Patrolman Brian Shaw of the City of New Kensington Police Department was shot and killed in the line of duty. At 8:06 p.m. Officer Shaw informed dispatch that a vehicle had failed to stop for his lights and sirens. Shortly afterwards, Officer Shaw announced that he was pursuing on foot. Moments later he radioed that he had been shot. Because no one witnessed the shooting, the Commonwealth established appellant Rahmel Sal Holt’s guilt through circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of Tavon Harper, the driver of the vehicle Officer Shaw attempted to stop. Holt would ultimately be convicted, for which he was sentenced to death. Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was automatic. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Holt" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Parrish appealed after the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County dismissed his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). To the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Parrish raised numerous claims of error, including a layered ineffectiveness claim in connection with the failure of trial counsel to file a notice of appeal after his conviction and death sentence. The first layer of his claim was the contention that trial counsel were ineffective for not consulting with him regarding his appellate rights before failing to file a notice of appeal, and in so doing, violated a constitutional duty established in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000). The second layer of the claim was Parrish’s assertion that his initial PCRA counsel’s stewardship of the failure to consult claim before the PCRA court was deficient, in that initial PCRA counsel failed to present any evidence or legal argument to substantiate the failure to consult claim. In his brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Parrish identified the evidence and legal theory that his initial PCRA counsel should have presented to the PCRA court. Parrish raised the second layer of his claim for the first time to the Supreme Court in this appeal, and the Supreme Court concluded he was permitted to do so without a finding of waiver based upon a recent decision in Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021). Accordingly, the Supreme Court remanded this case for the introduction of evidence and legal argument so that the PCRA court could issue a decision on the merits of Parrish’s layered failure to consult claim. View "Pennsylvania v. Parrish" on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in this matter to determine whether its reasoning in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 231 A.3d 807 (Pa. 2020) applied to preclude the retrial of Appellant Derrick Edwards on double jeopardy principles where the prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent when exercising a peremptory strike of an African American juror in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). After review, the Court held that the prosecutor’s violation of Batson under the circumstances presented did not preclude the retrial of Appellant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, which affirmed the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him on double jeopardy grounds. View "Pennsylvania v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Due to Pennsylvania's loss of population relative to the nation as a whole, Pennsylvania’s allotted number of congressional representatives declined from eighteen to seventeen. As a result, Pennsylvania required a new congressional districting plan drawn with only seventeen districts for the May 17, 2022, Primary Election. Because the General Assembly and the Governor failed to agree upon a congressional redistricting plan, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was tasked with that “unwelcome obligation.” After deliberating and affording due consideration to a Special Master’s findings and recommendation and reviewing de novo the relative merit of the submitted congressional plans, the Court respectfully declined to adopt the Special Master’s analysis and ultimate plan selection. Rather, on February 23, 2022, the Supreme Court entered a per curiam order, directing that the Pennsylvania primary and general elections for seats in the United States House of Representatives commencing in 2022 would be conducted in accordance with the plan submitted to the Special Master by the Carter Petitioners. The Court's order indicated that an opinion would follow, and this opinion was filed in accordance therewith. View "Carter, et al. v. Chapman, et al." on Justia Law

In 2009, when he was seventeen-and-a-half years old, appellant Michael Felder was playing in a pick-up basketball game with Andrew Williams at an outdoor court in Philadelphia. The pair were matched against brothers Jarrett and Malcolm Green. Appellant’s style of play became aggressive; an argument ensued after Williams refused to hand the ball over to the Greens. Appellant walked to the sideline and removed a .380 semiautomatic handgun from his gym bag, and shot Malcolm in the head before shooting Jarrett in the stomach and leg. A jury convicted appellant of first-degree murder and aggravated assault. Pursuant to the then-applicable mandatory sentence for first-degree murder, which also applied to juveniles, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Superior Court vacated appellant’s judgment of sentence two years later; by then, Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (“Batts I”) had been decided. Since appellant’s judgment of sentence was not yet final, the Superior Court determined he was entitled to the benefit of those rulings and to consideration of the Miller factors before being resentenced, and remanded the case for such proceedings. Upon remand, the court imposed a discretionary 50-years-to-life sentence for appellant’s first-degree murder conviction. On appeal to the Superior Court, appellant challenged the legality of his sentence, arguing “a 50-year minimum sentence is a de facto life sentence.” The Superior Court found that although the sentence precluded appellant from seeking parole until he was 68 years old, it was constitutional because it “was the result of an individualized and discretionary sentencing hearing[.]” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review limited to whether appellant's sentence was indeed a de facto life sentence requiring the sentencing court under Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017) (“Batts II”), "[to] first find permanent incorrigibility, irreparable corruption or irretrievable depravity beyond a reasonable doubt." The Supreme Court determined Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021) "abrogates our foundational understanding in Batts II." So long as the sentence imposed is discretionary and takes into account the offender’s youth, even if it amounts to a de facto life sentence, Miller is not violated. "Because the sentencing court in the present case followed this procedure, we affirm." View "Pennsylvania v. Felder" on Justia Law