Court Filings

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order dated April 21, 2026, quashed a notice of appeal in a dispute between Paula Grapes (as executrix of an estate) and Linda J. Grapes. The Court concluded that the appealed order was not one of the types of final orders that may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 722 and the state appellate rules defining final orders. Because the appeal did not meet the statutory and rule-based criteria for direct review, the notice of appeal was dismissed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a per curiam order on April 21, 2026 quashing a Notice of Appeal in a dispute involving Paula Grapes (as executrix of an estate) and Linda J. Grapes. The Court concluded the appeal could not proceed because the challenged order was not one of the types of final orders that may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court under state statute and appellate rules. The Court relied on 42 Pa.C.S. § 722 and Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b) in finding the appeal improper and therefore quashed the filing.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kurt Rillema’s motion to strike a November 18, 2024 default judgment entered in favor of C.M. Rillema argued the judgment should be stricken because of defects related to notice, the automatic bankruptcy stay, and the court’s allegedly excessive sanctioning for failure to comply with a prior order. The panel held the trial court properly denied relief because (1) the court could enter default judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1037(c) for failure to answer, (2) the automatic stay rendered earlier court action void but did not extend Rillema’s time to answer, and (3) no fatal defect appeared on the face of the record to warrant striking the judgment.

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 Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Thelma Peake's late request to file her appellate brief after the deadline and quashed her appeal in a dispute over Shaun Griffith’s nomination petition for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District. The court acted on an application for leave to file the brief nunc pro tunc and concluded the application must be denied. Because Peake failed to file a timely brief, the Court ended the appeal without reaching the merits of the underlying nomination-petition dispute.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Thelma Peake's late request to file her appellate brief out of time and quashed her appeal for failure to file a timely brief in a case challenging the nomination petition of Shaun Griffith for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. The court's order, issued per curiam, concluded that leave to file nunc pro tunc was not warranted and that the procedural default (no timely brief) required dismissal of the appeal. No substantive merits were reached because the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an application to correct the record under Pa.R.A.P. 1926 and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's March 31, 2026 order concerning the nomination petition of Karl Morris as the Democratic candidate for the Third Congressional District. The matter was an appeal by Karl Morris from the Commonwealth Court decision; the Supreme Court reviewed the procedural request to alter the record and declined it, leaving the lower court's decision intact.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the juvenile court's November 7, 2025 order that declined to terminate court supervision of dependent adult N.L. at age 21 and ordered York County Children and Youth Services (CYS) to fund N.L.’s placement until social security benefits were obtained. The juvenile court found that although CYS had developed a transition plan, the plan lacked an enforceable funding source because N.L.’s guardian had not secured benefits. The Superior Court held that a dependency court may continue supervision past 21 when a transition plan is not complete, particularly when income to support placement is not in place.

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 Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied appellants' challenge and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 2, 2026 order. The Court granted the appellants' request to supplement the record but upheld the lower court's decision that the candidate Al Buchtan’s nomination petition stands. The Court also ordered that Buchtan’s petition be treated as amended to list his legal residence as 100 Betty Boulevard, Carmichaels, Pennsylvania 15320, Greene County. Three justices recorded their dissent; a full opinion will follow explaining the detailed rationale.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 1, 2026 order upholding a decision involving Taiba Sultana's nomination petition for the Democratic nomination for state senator in the 18th Legislative District for the May 19, 2026 primary. The appeal by Taiba Sultana was considered and denied, and her separate application for a stay was dismissed as moot. One justice did not participate. The court issued a short per curiam order adopting the lower court's disposition without extended opinion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by Christina Marie Seeling from a Commonwealth Court order dated March 24, 2026, concerning the nomination petition of Robyn Bird for the Republican nomination for the State House 177th District in the May 19, 2026 primary. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision dated April 9, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's order. No further reasoning or factual detail is included in the short order beyond the affirmance.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an appellant’s motion to supplement the record, noted jurisdiction, and affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s March 26, 2026 order. The case concerned an objection to Summer Lee’s nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 12th U.S. Congressional District. The Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam order on April 9, 2026, leaving the lower court’s decision in place without adding materials to the record.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order dated April 8, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 2, 2026 order in the appeal concerning Tony Dphax King's nomination petition as the Democratic candidate for the 188th Legislative District. The Supreme Court reviewed the lower court's decision and concluded no basis existed to disturb it, resulting in affirmation of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. No additional reasoning or opinion text is provided in the document.

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.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the candidate Mark Lavelle leave to file an amended jurisdictional statement and to supplement his brief after receiving trial notes, but otherwise affirmed the Commonwealth Court's prior order. The appeal concerned Lavelle's nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 177th Legislative District. The court noted jurisdiction and allowed procedural relief to complete the appellate record, while concluding that the Commonwealth Court's disposition should stand. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Brobson, joined by Justices Dougherty and Mundy.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered Mark LaVelle’s challenge to a Commonwealth Court standing order that deems candidates notified of petitions to set aside nomination petitions when the court posts the filing on its public website. LaVelle argued this practice violates Section 977 of the Election Code, which requires an order specifying the time and manner of notice to the candidate. The Justice writing separately expressed doubt about the standing order’s compliance with the statute but concluded any defect in notice would only require a new hearing, not dismissal. Because LaVelle had, by stipulation, fewer than the 300 valid signatures required for the ballot, the Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order for that independent reason.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by Todd Elliot Koger, Sr. challenging a Commonwealth Court order concerning his nomination petition as the Democratic candidate for the 34th Legislative District. After consideration, the Supreme Court entered a per curiam order on April 7, 2026, affirming the Commonwealth Court's March 25, 2026 decision. The Supreme Court did not provide extended opinion or additional reasoning in this short order, simply affirming the lower court's disposition and ending the appeal at the state supreme court level.