Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this matter presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review involved the alleged forfeiture of a parent’s share in his child’s estate where his child died without a will. Specifically, the question was whether an adult decedent, who became disabled after reaching the age of majority, was a dependent child for purposes of the forfeiture statute. Generally, where an intestate decedent dies without a spouse or issue but with living parents, his or her parents were entitled to inherit the individual’s estate as tenants by the entirety. Notably, the Code did not define the phrase “dependent child.” Decedent was 18 years old when he sustained gunshot wounds, rendering him a paraplegic. At age 37, he died intestate without a spouse or issue, and Appellant (“Mother”) was granted letters of administration. Decedent’s estate subsequently recovered a $90,000 wrongful-death award, which became the estate’s sole asset. Mother filed a petition for forfeiture of estate, asserting that Appellee (“Father”) forfeited his share of the estate by allegedly failing to perform his duty of support. After Father’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, the orphans' court held a hearing. The Supreme Court held that the concepts of a dependent child and the parental duty of care, as they were referenced in Section 2106(b) of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, contemplated a legally-imposed parental duty stemming from a state of dependency arising under the established law of the Commonwealth. The Court also agreed with the orphans’ court that in this matter, Mother failed to demonstrate Decedent was a dependent child – and concomitantly, that Father had a duty of care – as required to obtain relief under that provision. View "In Re: Estate of Small" on Justia Law

In this appeal by allowance, the issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether application of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) to the judicial branch of our tripartite form of government violated separation of powers principles. On April 3, 1989, the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (“CCP”) Office of Adult Probation hired Appellant Michael Renner as a Parole Officer. In July 2011, Appellant informed Lehigh County Chief Probation Officer John Sikora that he had been diagnosed with a serious mental health condition and was hospitalized; he was subsequently absent from work for 4 to 6 weeks. During Appellant’s absence, Sikora telephoned him numerous times to confirm the legitimacy of Appellant’s condition. Upon his return to work, Appellant alleged Sikora and Lehigh County Benefits Manager Mark Surovy, both of whom supervised Appellant, pressured Appellant to resign or take a leave of absence. Appellant confronted Sikora about his hostilities towards him, but Sikora refused to discuss the matter. Subsequently, in March 2014, Sikora terminated Appellant for failing to administer a urine test to an offender under his supervision. Appellant claimed the test was not required and that the reason for his termination was pretextual. Appellant protested his termination to then-President Judge of the CCP Carol McGinley, but Judge McGinley refused to take any action. As a result, Appellant claimed he could not obtain other employment in any other court system, and, in 2014, he filed a charge of unlawful discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was dual-filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”), against Lehigh County Adult Probation, Sikora, and Surovy. Thereafter, Appellant completed training as a municipal officer, and, subsequently, was offered a police officer position by Northampton and Fountain Hill Boroughs. Appellant alleged that the CCP and Lehigh County learned that Appellant was offered employment as a police officer, and caused an order to be issued banning Appellant from possessing a firearm or taser in the Lehigh County Courthouse, Old Courthouse, and Government Center. As a result, Northampton and Fountain Hill Boroughs rescinded their employment offers. Appellant eventually got his gun possession ban lifted, but as a condition, the CCP and Lehigh County required him to undergo a medical exam, which Appellant contended was a violation of the PHRA. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that application of the PHRA to the judiciary would violate separation of powers principles, and thus, affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "Renner v. CCP of Lehigh Co., et al" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the Commonwealth challenged orders of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas relieving appellees, Claude Lacombe and Michael Witmayer, of their duty to comply with Subchapter I of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), based upon the court’s finding Subchapter I, as retroactively applied to appellees, was a punitive and unconstitutional ex post facto law. After review of the trial court records, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred, and found Subchapter I was nonpunitive and did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. View "Pennsylvania v. Witmayer" on Justia Law

In a matter of first impression, a Pennsylvania superior court held that anti-alienation provisions governing municipal pensions found in various statutes protected assets from attachment and other legal process (including a contract claim) only while those assets remained in the possession of the pension fund administrator. Specifically, the court determined that a spouse’s promise to waive her right to her husband’s pension benefits, including agreeing to transfer such benefits after receiving them from the administrator, was legally enforceable. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that because the superior court’s interpretation was consistent with the plain language of the statutes, the context in which the provisions appear, and Pennsylvania precedent interpreting similar statutory language, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court. View "Estate of M&J Benyo v. Breidenbach" on Justia Law

In an appeal by allowance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the level of deference courts had to afford an administrative agency’s interpretation of its enabling statute. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Commonwealth Court erred in concluding that Distributed Antenna System (DAS) networks were public utilities under the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code (Code), thereby reversing the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) interpretation of the definition of “public utility." This case involved the status of DAS networks as public utilities in Pennsylvania. Appellees, Crown Castle NG East LLC (Crown Castle NG) and Pennsylvania-CLEC LLC (Pennsylvania-CLEC) (collectively Crown Castle), operated DAS networks. Crown Castle’s DAS networks provided telecommunications transport services to Wireless Service Providers (WSP), such as AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and others. The WSPs offered "commercial mobile radio service" (CMRS) to retail end-users. The Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth Court that DAS network operators did not provide CMRS because DAS network operators “own no spectrum, need no phone numbers, and their contractual relationship is solely with the WSPs, not with the retail cell phone user. . . . [T]he DAS network operator has no control over the generation of that signal [that it transports for the WSPs].” Accordingly, the Court concluded that DAS network operators did not furnish CMRS and were not excluded from the definition of public utility by Section 102(2)(iv). Further, the Court concluded the Commonwealth Court did not err in holding that the PUC’s interpretation of a clear and unambiguous statutory provision was not entitled to deference. Further, the Commonwealth Court properly concluded that DAS network service met the definition of “public utility” and is not excluded from that definition as it did not furnish CMRS service. View "Crown Castle NG East LLC, et al v. Pennsylvania Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant Darren Montgomery was charged with one count each of carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, and carrying a firearm without a license. The issue on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court centered on whether the superior court erred in holding that a handgun partially tucked into one’s waistband, leaving the weapon’s handle visible, was “concealed” as a matter of law for purposes of Section 6106 of the Uniform Firearm’s Act, 18 Pa.C.S. 6106, which prohibited carrying a concealed firearm without a license. The Supreme Court rejected the superior court’s holding that any level of concealment of a firearm demonstrated concealment as a matter of law, and reaffirmed the well-settled principal that whether a defendant concealed a firearm pursuant to Section 6106 was an extremely fact-intensive question for a jury to determine based upon a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that a review of the totality of the circumstances established there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate a prima facie case of concealment under Section 6106. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior Court’s judgment, which reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the Section 6106 charge. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on the legality of Jimel King’s enhanced sentence for attempted murder resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 Pa.C.S. section 1102(c) when the Commonwealth failed to provide formal notice of its intent to seek the enhancement in the charging documents. Also for the Court's consideration was whether King’s consecutive sentences for the two inchoate crimes of attempted murder and conspiracy, arising out of the same incident, were precluded by 18 Pa.C.S. sections 903 and 906. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the sentence as to the enhanced murder sentence, but vacated the judgment of sentence at the conspiracy count. "The traditional merger test has no application here because the ... merger statute would never apply to the inchoate crimes of conspiracy and criminal attempt. The plain language of the specific statute governing this scenario precludes multiple sentences because there is no possibility that the conspiracy to commit aggravated assault existed independently of any conspiracy to kill, nor does the Commonwealth allege any kind of temporal separation or other circumstances to suggest that two conspiratorial agreements could have existed. By enacting Section 906, the General Assembly declared that where a defendant tries to achieve a result – in this case, murder – but fails to do so, he may only be punished once in the absence of distinct criminal objectives." The matter was remanded for resentencing. View "Pennsylvania v. King" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review in this case was whether a person subject to a bench warrant was a “fugitive from justice” such that he was a “person not to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture” a firearm pursuant to Section 6105 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Court concluded the active bench warrant for appellant Brahim Smith rendered him a fugitive from justice prohibited from possessing a firearm, and he was properly convicted under that statute. View "Pennsylvania v. Smith" on Justia Law

While driving a vehicle in December 2014, Appellant Kaitlyn Wolfel struck two pedestrians, killing one and injuring the other. She was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, and police transported her to a local health center for blood testing. Prior to the blood draw, police advised Appellant that, if she refused to submit to the test, she would be subject to enhanced criminal penalties pursuant to the Implied Consent Law. Appellant consented to the procedure, and the test yielded a blood alcohol content of .178 percent. Appellant was charged with numerous criminal offenses, including homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence. In 2016, while the case remained at the pretrial stage, the federal Supreme Court issued its decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). Birchfield held, among other things, that consent to a warrantless blood draw was vitiated when such assent follows the administration by police of a warning of enhanced criminal penalties upon refusal of the testing. Appellant then lodged a motion contending, in very general terms, that Birchfield required suppression of the blood evidence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined the Commonwealth waived its challenge to Appellant’s failure to raise a claim under Pa. Const. Article I, Section 8, by failing to challenge the suppression court’s explicit invocation of that provision before the superior court. The superior court order was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Wolfel" on Justia Law

In 2016, Appellant James Hamlett, Jr. was convicted of numerous crimes deriving from a sexual assault upon a minor, and lengthy concurrent terms of incarceration were imposed at sentencing. On appeal, the superior court found that the trial court had erred in admitting a video of a forensic interview of the victim into evidence. Nevertheless, the intermediate court invoked the harmless-error doctrine to deny Appellant’s request for a new trial, reasoning that the video was merely cumulative of properly-admitted evidence in the form of the victim's testimony. The Commonwealth hadn't argued harmlessness. Nonetheless, the superior court invoked the precept that an appellate court could affirm a valid verdict based on any reason appearing in the record, regardless of whether the rationale was raised by the appellee. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether it should prohibit Pennsylvania appellate courts from exercising their discretion to apply the harmless-error doctrine when deemed warranted, in criminal cases where advocacy from the Commonwealth on the subject was lacking. Appellant's core position on appeal was that the practice of appellate courts exercising their discretion like this should have been disapproved and discarded: that application of the right-for-any-reason doctrine to support sua sponte harmless-error review inappropriately relieved the government from meeting its burden of proof of harmlessness, upon an appellate court's discernment of trial error. To this, the Supreme Court disagreed, affirming the superior court judgment. View "Pennsylvania v. Hamlett" on Justia Law