Court Filings

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court and upheld the trial court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s motion to nolle prosequi charges of negligent simple assault against former officer Stuart Harrison. The Commonwealth argued its key eyewitness had died and, without that testimony, it could not prove criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held the trial court applied the correct Reinhart standard — evaluating whether the Commonwealth’s stated reasons were valid and reasonable — and found other available witnesses provided sufficient evidence to allow trial, so the nolle prosequi was not justified.

Justice Dougherty concurred in part and dissented in part from the Court’s decision affirming the Superior Court’s judgment in Commonwealth v. Harrison. He would have reversed the Superior Court’s published opinion and remanded for application of this Court’s binding precedent (particularly Commonwealth v. Reinhart and Commonwealth v. DiPasquale) governing judicial review of a prosecutor’s motion to nolle prosequi. He criticizes the Superior Court for adopting a de novo standard for review and the majority for affirming on an alternate ground and addressing issues the Commonwealth did not raise, while warning about separation-of-powers concerns and unresolved practical consequences of the decision.

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Tyrell Giles’s PCRA petition challenging his convictions for aggravated assault and related offenses. Giles filed a late (nunc pro tunc) post-conviction petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when witnesses testified that he was on state parole. The court held the petition was untimely and Giles failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review the claim. The Superior Court therefore affirmed denial of relief, noting the lower court’s merits ruling was unnecessary.

The Superior Court vacated and remanded the defendant Dwayne Eric Lee’s sentence because the trial court imposed no jail time for a conviction under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1)(i). The Commonwealth appealed the sentence as illegal; the court interpreted the statutory phrase “shall be sentenced . . . to undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days” to require an indeterminate sentence with a mandatory 60-day minimum and a 90-day maximum. Because the trial court imposed zero days, the sentence was illegal and must be vacated for resentencing consistent with the statutory range.

This is a dissenting opinion in a Pennsylvania Superior Court criminal appeal. The dissent argues the majority misapplied precedent and statutory rules in interpreting 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1)(i). Relying on Commonwealth v. Glover (1959) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756, the dissent contends the statute prescribes a maximum sentence range of 60 to 90 days and that any minimum cannot exceed half the chosen maximum. The dissenter would vacate the majority’s sentencing interpretation and remand for resentencing consistent with Glover and section 9756 (maximum 60–90 days; minimum no more than half the maximum).

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Edward Zealor’s convictions for fifty counts of possessing child sexual abuse material. Zealor had moved to suppress evidence obtained after the Commonwealth used administrative subpoenas under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743.1 to obtain subscriber and router log information tying his shared IP/port to torrent files containing child pornography. The court held Zealor lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber, payment, and IP/port/torrent connection data, and even if some non‑constitutional statutory overreach occurred, suppression is not an available remedy under the Act. The convictions and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of Jason Harding’s first PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing. Harding sought post-conviction relief asserting layered ineffective-assistance claims (trial, direct-appeal, and PCRA counsel) and other errors stemming from trial events (jury delay/mistrial, admission of a statement to police, counsel’s witness choices, and his decision to testify). The court found the claims either procedurally waived, meritless, or unprejudicial: the delay did not prejudice Harding, his custodial statement was a spontaneous utterance not requiring Miranda warnings, failure to call a particular witness would not have helped his self-defense case, and his decision to testify was knowing and voluntary.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Hakime Cooper’s conviction and sentence after a bench trial. Cooper was convicted of retaliation against a witness/victim and harassment for threatening the victim in a courthouse hallway after the victim testified against her. The court held the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence because Cooper and two companions together made multiple threats, satisfying the statute’s requirement of a course of conduct or repeated threatening acts. The court therefore upheld Cooper’s six- to twelve-month sentence for retaliation; no additional penalty was imposed for harassment.

The Superior Court vacated a April 29, 2025 revocation-of-probation sentence imposed on Leroy Kenneth Thomas and remanded to re-impose his earlier October 25, 2021 revocation-of-probation sentence. The PCRA court had entertained an untimely collateral petition and resentenced Thomas without jurisdiction because the petition did not satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or an exception. Because the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction, its resentencing was void ab initio. The court therefore vacated the 2025 sentence and ordered reinstatement of the 2021 sentence, leaving any discretionary-sentencing challenges unreviewed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Philadelphia County PCRA court order granting Jamal R. Sanders a new trial. Sanders had been convicted in 1998 of third-degree murder and related offenses based largely on testimony that he had access to the gun later used by a co-defendant. After decades in custody, a witness (Shawn Clark) submitted an affidavit recanting trial testimony and stating detectives coerced him; Clark later died. The PCRA court found the recantation admissible under the statement-against-interest exception and likely to produce a different verdict; the Superior Court agreed and affirmed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions and sentences of Kylen Pratt, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with evidence for the death and burning of Naasire Johnson. The court rejected challenges to (1) admission of a detective’s chart summarizing voluminous cell-phone timing data, finding the summary met the rules for admissibility; (2) admission of appellant’s Google searches, finding they were relevant to his state of mind and not unduly prejudicial; and (3) the discretionary imposition of consecutive sentences, finding no abuse of sentencing discretion.

The Superior Court considered James Smith’s challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for two convictions of unlawful contact with a minor after the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Strunk. The Court concluded Smith’s verbal statements to the victims — instructing them to perform oral sex and directing one to lie on a table immediately before assaulting her — were communications that induced or otherwise furthered sexual exploitation and therefore satisfied the statute’s communicative requirement. The court affirmed Smith’s convictions and judgment of sentence.

The Superior Court affirmed Jonathan Rivera’s convictions and sentence following his second jury trial for multiple sexual offenses against four minor girls. Rivera argued the trial court vindictively imposed a longer sentence after he successfully appealed his first convictions and that applying a later-enacted felony grading to one corruption-of-minors count violated the ex post facto clauses. The court found a presumption of vindictiveness attached but held it was rebutted by objective new information at resentencing (an SVP designation, victims’ updated testimony and impact, and Rivera’s trial testimony showing lack of remorse). The court also found the record supported offenses occurring after the statute’s effective date, so no ex post facto violation occurred.

The Superior Court reviewed a trial court’s pretrial evidence rulings in the Commonwealth’s vehicular homicide prosecution of Joshua A. Rivera. The panel affirmed some exclusions and reversed others: it upheld exclusion of body-camera audio and a Facebook video, but reversed the exclusion of non-numeric lay descriptions of driving by certain eyewitnesses and reversal of the exclusion of drug-related items found in Rivera’s impounded vehicle. The court reasoned that in a criminal case where the prosecution must prove state of mind, lay witnesses may give contextual, non-numeric testimony about driving, and items found pursuant to a lawful warrant were relevant and not rendered inadmissible by the time gap while the car was impounded.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the conviction of appellant Damien Mancuso because the prosecution failed to fix the date of the charged sexual offense with reasonable certainty, violating his due process rights. The court recognized the difficulties victims may face in reporting historic sexual abuse and the Legislature’s elimination or extension of limitations for many child sexual offenses, but held that the Commonwealth must still narrow the timeframe enough to allow a fair defense. The concurrence joined the majority and emphasized that an overly broad date range in distant-past allegations is fundamentally unfair to defendants.

Three brothers were tried jointly and convicted of sexual offenses against a single complainant from events when she was a minor. The Superior Court reversed Damien’s sentence because the Commonwealth failed to specify the date of his alleged offense with sufficient particularity. The Court reversed Rian’s sentence and ordered a new trial because consolidation of his trial with Damien’s was an abuse of discretion and prosecutorial closing remarks improperly invited guilt by association. The Court affirmed Sean’s convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing because his convictions for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault must merge for sentencing.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence imposed on Kevin Lee Steager after he pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses against his daughter. Steager received an aggregate term of 4½ to 9 years’ imprisonment and 4 years’ probation, and was later designated a sexually violent predator (SVP). Appellate counsel sought to withdraw under Anders; the court found counsel’s submission compliant and conducted an independent review. The court held that challenges to the plea, merger, sentencing legality, SVP designation, and discretionary sentencing were either waived or lacked merit, so the appeal was frivolous and the sentence was affirmed.