Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal concerned the application of the statutory compulsory joinder rules, which generally require a prosecutor to pursue, in a single proceeding, all known charges against a defendant arising from a single criminal episode occurring within the same judicial district, subject to enumerated exceptions. In 2015, as the result of a traffic stop, Appellant Dewitt Johnson was arrested and charged with driving with a suspended license, possession with intent to deliver heroin (“PWID”), and knowing and intentional possession of heroin (“K&I”). Before the Traffic Division of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, he was found guilty, in absentia, of the summary traffic offense. The Municipal Court’s jurisdiction was capped at criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; because of this, the Commonwealth pursued the drug offenses in the common pleas court. Appellant moved to dismiss, contending the prosecution was required to try all of the offenses simultaneously, per the compulsory joinder requirements of Section 110 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. The Commonwealth conceded it was foreclosed from pursuing the K&I charge, because that crime, like the traffic offense, fell within the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth argued that PWID remained viable, since the Municipal Court had lacked jurisdiction over that offense. In this regard, the Commonwealth invoked Section 112(1) of the Crimes Code, which served as an exception to Section 110’s general prohibition. The Superior Court accepted this argument and affirmed with respect to PWID. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded the matter for dismissal of the PWID charge: "the Commonwealth must generally assure that known offenses are consolidated at the common pleas level, when they arise out of a single criminal episode and occur in the same judicial district." View "Pennsylvania v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In a probation revocation case, the trial court entered an order removing the District Attorney’s Office and appointing a private criminal-defense attorney to represent the Commonwealth as a “special prosecutor.” Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded the court lacked the authority to make such an appointment, the trial court’s order was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

In this case, the Superior Court affirmed a trial court order that dismissed a plaintiff’s complaint based upon plaintiff’s failure to timely serve her complaint upon the defendant despite the fact that plaintiff’s actions did not amount to intentional conduct. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to address whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicted with Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) and its progeny, and responded in the negative. Consistent with the Superior Court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that a trial court has the discretion to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to offer proof that she diligently attempted to serve process on a defendant in a timely manner and there was no evidence to indicate that the defendant had actual notice of the commencement of the action in the relevant time frame, regardless of whether the plaintiff acted or failed to act intentionally. Because the Superior Court reached the correct result in this matter, judgment was affirmed. View "Gussom v. Teagle" on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in this case to determine the propriety of raising a claim in a habeas corpus petition that the sentencing statute under which Appellant was sentenced was unconstitutionally vague, or if such a claim was properly considered an illegal sentence claim cognizable solely under the mandates of the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Appellant Ingram Moore was convicted by jury of first degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for the 1993 murder of Kevin Levy. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He filed a federal writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed as time barred. In April 2015, Appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum. Appellant’s petition lay dormant until he filed a Motion to Compel Disposition on March 12, 2016. Appellant then filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on April 15, 2016 raising a claim that his continued incarceration was illegal as the statute he was sentenced under was unconstitutionally vague for failing to give defendant notice that a sentence of life imprisonment meant without parole. A trial court ultimately dismissed Appellant’s petitions on May 31, 2017 “pursuant to the [PCRA].” Appellant appealed pro se. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal and held the trial court correctly viewed Appellant’s petitions for habeas relief as petitions for post-conviction relief under the PCRA. In making this determination, the Superior Court noted a writ of habeas corpus was properly considered a PCRA petition if the issue raised was cognizable under the PCRA. Appellant conceded that an issue cognizable under the PCRA must be brought through the PCRA’s procedures. Appellant asserted his claim that the statute he was sentenced under was void for vagueness was not a claim that fell within the specified claims available for relief under the PCRA and therefore was properly brought in a habeas petition. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding his arguments fell within the PCRA's purview. The trial court correctly dismissed his petition; the Superior Court's order was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Moore" on Justia Law

Appellee John Linkosky applied for renewal of his Pennsylvania driver’s license. The Department of Transportation (PennDOT) granted the renewal application and issued him a temporary internet driver’s license, which was valid from October 4 to October 18, 2018. The accompanying instructions advised Linkosky that he would receive a camera card within ten days. The instructions further directed Linkosky to present the camera card at any Department photo center and have a new photo taken for purposes of receiving a renewed photo driver’s license. On October 16, 2018, Linkosky pled guilty in Ohio to DUI. As a result, his operating privileges were suspended in that state for a period of twelve months, with credit awarded to him from June 30, 2018. At some point during October 2018, Linkosky received his camera card from the Department, but misplaced it. Nearly two months after his Ohio DUI conviction, Linkosky asked for a replacement camera card from PennDOT. PennDOT denied Linkosky’s request, finding that as of the date of his application for a replacement camera card, the National Driver Register (“NDR” or “Register”) indicated that his operating privileges were suspended in Ohio. The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether PennDOT erred in denying Linkosky a replacement camera card. The Supreme Court found PennDOT did not err in denying the replacement card; the Commonwealth Court's judgment, which affirmed the trial court's sustaining of the licensee's statutory appeal, was reversed. View "Linkosky v. PennDOT" on Justia Law

In this appeal by allowance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether, under the Pennsylvania Adoption Act, an attorney could act as both guardian ad litem and legal counsel for a minor child, in the context of a petition for termination of parental rights, where counsel did not expressly inquire into the child’s preferred outcome of the termination proceedings. In these unique circumstances, the Court found the attorney was able to fulfill her professional duties and act in both roles. Thus, the Court affirmed the Superior Court order, which affirmed the termination of parental rights in this case. View "In Re: P.G.F." on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review to consider whether a notice of appeal filed at a single docket number corresponding to the lead case of multiple consolidated civil cases should have been quashed for failing to satisfy the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) as interpreted in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). The Superior Court relied on Walker to quash the appeal below at one docket number, but the Supreme Court held Walker was inapplicable to the particular facts of this case and therefore reversed. View "Always Busy Consulting v. Babford & Company" on Justia Law

In an appeal by allowance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether the Commonwealth, by the Office of Attorney General (OAG), could bring claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) on behalf of private landowners against a natural gas exploration and production company for its alleged deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices in obtaining natural gas leases from the landowners. The Supreme Court concluded the OAG could not bring claims under the UTPCPL on behalf of private landowners against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Onshore, L.L.C. (Anadarko) for its alleged unfair and deceptive practices in acquiring natural gas leases from the landowners. Furthermore, the Court found its resolution of the first issue rendered the second issue moot. The Court affirmed the portion of the Commonwealth Court’s decision that reversed the trial court order overruling Anadarko’s preliminary objections to Count III of the OAG’s second amended complaint, and otherwise reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "Com. v. Chesapeake Energy, et al (Anadarko, Aplt.)" on Justia Law

In 1999, Gary and Mary Gregg sought the expertise of Robert Kovalchik, a financial advisor and insurance salesperson for Ameriprise Financial, Inc. Engaging in what the trial court concluded was deceptive sales practices, Kovalchik made material misrepresentations to the Greggs to induce them to buy certain insurance policies. The Greggs ultimately sued Ameriprise Financial, Inc., Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., Riversource Life Ins. Co., and Kovalchik (collectively, Ameriprise) under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“CPL”). The Greggs’ complaint also asserted, inter alia, common law claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the common law claims, resulting in a defense verdict. The CPL claim proceeded to a bench trial. After the trial court ruled in favor of the Greggs on that CPL claim, Ameriprise filed a motion for post-trial relief arguing (among other points) that the Greggs failed to establish that Kovalchik’s misrepresentations were, at the very least, negligent, a finding that Ameriprise asserted was required to establish deceptive conduct under the CPL. The trial court denied relief, and the Superior Court affirmed. Like the trial court, the Superior Court concluded that the Greggs were not required to prevail on the common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation in order to succeed on their CPL claim. The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether, as the Superior Court held, a strict liability standard applied to the Greggs’ CPL claim. The Court determined the relevant statutory provision lead it to conclude deceptive conduct under the CPL was not dependent in any respect upon proof of the actor’s state of mind. "The Superior Court’s holding is consistent not only with the plain language of the CPL, but also with our precedent holding that the CPL is a remedial statute that should be construed broadly in order to comport with the legislative will to eradicate unscrupulous business practices." View "Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, et al." on Justia Law

Upon completion of an investigation of a report of child abuse, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) or its designated county children and youth agency (county agency) categorizes the investigated report as “indicated,” “founded,” or “unfounded.” When a report of child abuse was substantiated as either indicated or founded, or amended from indicated or founded, the named perpetrator is provided with notice of the status, including the effect of a substantiated report upon future employment opportunities involving children, and the individual’s name was added to the statewide child abuse database where it could remain indefinitely. On July 6, 2017, the county agency filed two identical indicated reports (CPS reports) identifying J.F. as a perpetrator of abuse of her fifteen-month-old twin children. While her administrative appeal of the CPS reports was pending, J.F. entered into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) for both criminal counts of endangering the welfare of children. As a result of J.F.’s entry into ARD, the county agency changed the status of the CPS reports from “indicated” to “founded,” then filed a motion to dismiss J.F.’s administrative appeal, attaching the criminal court docket, and averring the factual circumstances of the ARD were the same as the CPS reports which authorized the county agency to change the reports’ status to founded. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review to determine whether J.F., seeking to challenge the founded report, was entitled an administrative hearing. The Court held that in the absence of another appropriate forum to challenge DHS’s adjudication of child abuse in a recorded evidentiary hearing, a named perpetrator in a report designated as “founded” based upon the perpetrator’s voluntary entry into an accelerated rehabilitative disposition was entitled to an administrative hearing. View "J.F. v. Department of Human Services" on Justia Law