IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
- Nicholas Greene
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Richard Thomas, : Petitioner : : No C.D v. : : Submitted: March 2, 2012 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: April 13, 2012 Richard Thomas (Thomas) petitions for review from an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that denied his request for administrative relief. Specifically, Thomas sought credit toward his sentence for the time he resided at two privately owned community corrections facilities, and for the time he served awaiting trial on subsequent charges. Upon review, we affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part. In 2005, as a result of pleading guilty to several robbery charges, Thomas was sentenced to two-and-a-half to six years of incarceration in a state facility. Thereafter, in 2007, the Board paroled Thomas. As a condition of parole, Thomas was required to participate in an approved residential drug and alcohol treatment program.
2 In due course, Thomas began his residence at the Gateway Braddock facility (Gateway Braddock). During that time, Thomas completed the initial 45- day in-patient treatment phase of the program. After completing the initial stage, Thomas was transferred to the work-release phase of his residency. Thomas promptly absconded, but turned himself in the next day. Instead of reincarceration, the Board permitted Thomas to enroll in a residential treatment program at Penn Pavilion (Penn Pavilion). Upon moving to Penn Pavilion, Thomas again began an initial 45 days of in-patient treatment. After Thomas completed that phase of the program, he remained at Penn Pavilion for another 45 days, after which his entire program was complete. After completing his residential treatment program in 2008, Thomas was arrested for driving under the influence and drug related charges. Thomas posted bail on these 2008 charges, and he remained in custody as a technical parole violator pursuant to a Board detainer. While in custody, in January 2009, Thomas was charged with additional crimes in Allegheny County. In June 2009, he pled guilty to both the 2008 charges and the 2009 charges, and he was sentenced to a term of incarceration in a county facility. In addition, the Board issued a revocation decision recommitting Thomas as a convicted and technical parole violator. At that time, the Board 2
3 recalculated the maximum expiration date of Thomas s original sentence. The Board s recalculation did not reduce Thomas s original sentence by any of the time he resided at either Gateway Braddock or Penn Pavilion, or as a result of the time he spent in custody after his January 2009 arrest while awaiting trial. Thereafter, Thomas appealed, and a Cox hearing ensued. 1 Before a hearing examiner, Thomas contended he was entitled to credit for the time he spent in the initial 45-day in-patient treatment phases of the programs at both Gateway Braddock and Penn Pavilion pursuant to Cox v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 507 Pa. 614, 493 A.2d 680 (1985). In support of his claim, Thomas presented the testimony of Riechelle Griffith (Gateway Braddock Employee), a custody control coordinator for Gateway Braddock, and he testified on his own behalf. In response, the Board presented the testimony of Parole Supervisor Patricia Valauri, Doug McClinton (Penn Pavilion Employee), Penn Pavilion s chief of operations, and additional testimony from the Gateway Braddock Employee. Thereafter, the hearing examiner determined the specific characteristics of the programs at Gateway Braddock and Penn Pavilion were not equivalent to incarceration. The hearing examiner considered the facilities more akin to drug and alcohol treatment programs than to state correctional institutions. 1 See Cox v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 507 Pa. 614, 493 A.2d 680 (1985) (where a recommitted parole violator alleges that his participation in an inpatient drug treatment program, at which he resided as a condition of parole, constituted the equivalent of prison incarceration, the Board must hold an evidentiary hearing to provide the parole violator an opportunity to show that the restrictions on his liberties were sufficient to warrant backtime credit for time spent in the program). 3
4 Thus, he concluded Thomas was not entitled to credit for the time he participated in the 45-day in-patient treatment phase of the programs. Thereafter, the Board issued its determination adopting the hearing examiner s findings and conclusions, and denying Thomas s appeal. Thomas filed a petition for administrative review, contending the Board did not properly credit his original sentence for the time he spent in custody awaiting disposition of his January 2009 charges, and that the Board s Cox hearing findings were in error. The Secretary of the Board affirmed the recalculation order rejecting both of Thomas s arguments. Thomas petitions for review. On appeal, 2 Thomas asserts he should receive credit for the 45 days he lived in in-patient treatment at Gateway Braddock, and another 45 days of credit for the time he participated in subsequent in-patient treatment at Penn Pavilion. Additionally, Thomas argues the Board erred in not crediting him with all of time he was in custody between his January 2009 arrest and the effective date of his sentence on those charges. The Board responds that Thomas s own evidence, in addition to the evidence it presented, establishes that neither in-patient treatment phase of the 2 Our review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether constitutional rights were violated. Reavis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Moreover, we will not interfere with the Board s determination of whether a program is a prison equivalent unless the Board acted arbitrarily or plainly abused its discretion. Cox. 4
5 programs was equivalent to prison incarceration. Furthermore, the Board contends Thomas s sentence is correct with regard to his 2009 arrest and sentence because he did not post bail, and remained in custody on those charges. Section 6138(a)(2) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), which governs the revocation of parole and the subsequent computation of a convicted parole violator s remaining sentence, states no credit shall be given for the time at liberty on parole. (emphasis added). In interpreting the prior version of the Section 6138(a)(2) of the Parole Code, 3 our Supreme Court defines the phase at liberty on parole, to mean not at liberty from all confinement but at liberty from confinement on the particular sentence for which the convict is being re-entered as a parole violator. Cox, 507 Pa. at 614, 493 A.2d at 683. As such, at liberty on parole is not equivalent to free or street time. Harden v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 980 A.2d 691 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc). While a parolee faces a heavy burden to rebut the presumption against granting credit for time spent at a residential treatment facility, a parolee may establish entitlement to credit where he demonstrates the facility s program constituted prison equivalent restrictions on his liberty. Cox; Harden. The determination of whether a treatment facility is prison like, and sufficiently restrictive is a fact-specific question that must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 3 In Cox, our Supreme Court interpreted the former Section 21.1(a) of the act commonly known as the Parole Act, Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, as amended, added by Section 5 of the Act of August 24, 1951, P.L. 1401, formerly 61 P.S a(a), which was repealed and replaced by substantially similar language by the Act of August 11, 2009, P.L. 147, No. 33, as codified 61 Pa.C.S. 6138(a)(2). 5
6 Harden. The most important factors in determining whether credit is warranted for the time a parolee resides at an in-patient rehabilitation facility is whether the parolee is locked in, and whether he may leave without being physically restrained. Detar v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 890 A.2d 27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Here, both of the privately operated facilities, Gateway Braddock and Penn Pavilion, were physically unlike prisons. See Harden. The facilities were not fenced in, the doors to the residential building were not locked from the outside, and neither had guards to physically restrain parolees from absconding. Certified Record (C.R.) at 32, 133, 108. Furthermore, the staffs at both facilities were instructed never to physically restrain parolees who wished to leave. C.R. at 34. Moreover, absconding parolees were not criminally charged with escape. C.R. at 34, 136. Therefore, the facilities were not prison like, and residence at one was not equivalent to incarceration. See Harden. However, during the 45-day inpatient programs, Thomas was subject to a more restrictive level of supervision. C.R. 74; see Torres v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 861 A.2d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (en banc) (recognizing a common distinction between the initial treatment period, i.e., the black-out period and the remaining time spent at the facility based on the additional restrictions imposed during that initial period). Thus, the next and more critical question is whether the 45-day treatment programs imposed additional restrictions sufficient to constitute prison like restrictions on his liberties. 6
7 Thomas described the initial 45 days at Gateway Braddock and Penn Pavilion in very similar terms. Specifically, he described each as having a structured daily schedule entirely confined within the facility. C.R. at 62-63, 127. Furthermore, Thomas stated he was subject to a pat down and metal detectors any time he entered the buildings, and multiple head counts throughout the day. C.R. at 62, 125. However, Thomas also testified each facility allowed him to go to the store or receive off-site medical treatment with the supervision of a facility employee. C.R. at 59-60, 124. The Gateway Braddock Employee and the Penn Pavilion Employee corroborated Thomas s pertinent testimony. C.R. at Upon review, Thomas did not prove his initial 45 days of in-patient treatment at either residential facility were equivalent to incarceration. See Willis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 842 A.2d 490 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Notably, the facilities mere imposition of rigid schedules does not transform the treatment facilities into prison equivalents. See Harden. As the facilities employees explained, the purpose of strict security and scheduling is not to confine the residents, but to provide the opportunity for the best possible treatment, and to keep contraband out of the facilities. C.R. at , Additionally, while the use of an armed escort would be probative evidence of prison-like conditions, an escort who functions to facilitate a parolee s transportation needs certainly is not. See Harden. Here, not only were the escorts not armed guards, but at Gateway Braddock, the escorts often oversaw groups of residents during off-site trips for errands or medical treatments. C.R. at 61. Moreover, unlike the parolee in Torres, Thomas was free at any time to walk away 7
8 during either 45-day period of in-patient treatment without unlocking a door, or risking physical restraint. See Jackson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 568 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (facility simply notifying the Board if a parolee absconds is not prison-like confinement). Furthermore, this Court previously considered the 45-day in-patient phase of the program at Penn Pavilion and determined it was not sufficiently restrictive to warrant granting a parolee credit for his time spent in that program. Harden. Similarly, in Detar and Willis, we examined another Gateway facility, which was factually similar to Gateway Braddock, and we concluded the initial 45 days of in-patient treatment were not sufficiently restrictive to be considered a prison equivalent. Because Thomas presented no evidence beyond what this Court considered in Harden, Detar and Willis, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas credit for the 90 days he spent in in-patient treatment at Gateway Braddock and Penn Pavilion. As such, we reject Thomas s argument. Thomas also contends the Board erred in re-computing his maximum sentence date because it did not credit his original sentence with the time he spent in custody between his January 2009 arrest and the disposition of those charges pursuant to Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 488 Pa. 397, 412 A.2d 568 (1980). 4 Factually, Thomas claims he posted bail on all of his 4 In Gaito, our Supreme Court held that where a parole violator is arrested on new criminal charges and satisfies the requirements for bail on those charges, and is thereafter held solely on a Board detainer, the time spent in custody shall be credited against his original sentence. However, if a parole violator does not satisfy his bail requirements, any time spent in custody is credited to any resulting new sentence. Id. 8
9 pending criminal charges and was held solely on a Board detainer at that time. As such, he asserts the right to credit for the time he spent in custody, from January 21 to June 30, 2009, against his original sentence. It does not appear that the Board considered this issue. C.R. at On appeal, the Secretary also denied relief. C.R. at 264. Specifically, the Secretary concluded there was no indication that [Thomas] posted bail from the criminal charges and you did not claim that he posted bail in your appeal. C.R. at 264. Despite a thorough review of the certified record, 5 we cannot conduct effective appellate review of this issue. Notably, Thomas s initial appeal, to which the Secretary referred when she considered this issue waived, is absent from the certified record. Moreover, the certified record does not establish whether Thomas in fact posted bail on his January charges. Thus, we remand for the Board to determine whether Thomas is entitled to credit pursuant to Gaito, and to develop a sufficient record for appellate review of this issue. 5 When reviewing matters as an appellate body, this Court is bound by the facts certified in the record on appeal. Grever v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 989 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); Cambria Cnty. Mental Health/Mental Retardation v. State Civil Serv. Comm n, 756 A.2d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Appended to his brief, Thomas included what appears to be his September 2010 administrative appeal. Additionally, Thomas includes criminal docket sheets related to his 2008 and 2009 arrests. The documents appended to Thomas s brief tend to establish that: 1) Thomas raised the issue of credit for this time in his appeal to the Board, but he did not assert he posted bail on the 2009 charges; and 2) Thomas did not post bail on the 2009 charges. Nevertheless, because these documents were not made part of the certified record, we cannot consider them at this time. 9
10 Accordingly, we affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge 10
11 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Richard Thomas, : Petitioner : : No C.D v. : : Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent : O R D E R AND NOW, this 13 th day of April, 2012, the order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is AFFIRMED, in part, and VACATED and REMANDED, in part, for proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. Jurisdiction is relinquished. ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2605. September Term, 2002 HENRY L. PITTS STATE OF MARYLAND
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2605 September Term, 2002 HENRY L. PITTS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Murphy, C.J., Getty, James S., (Retired, specially assigned), Moylan, Charles E.,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GARY L. GEROW JR. v. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS VIERECK Appellant No. 656 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Clyde McGriff, Petitioner v. No. 1352 C.D. 2011 Submitted May 25, 2012 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NORMAN MATHIS Appellant No. 1368 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TONY DELGADO, Appellant No. 515 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : JOSEPH MENDEZ, : Appellee : No.
2000 PA Super 81 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : JOSEPH MENDEZ, : Appellee : No. 1892 EDA 1999 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered May
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Glenn Meyer, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Raytheon Company), No. 235 C.D. 2001 Respondent Submitted May 11, 2001 BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Discovery Charter School, Petitioner v. No. 673 C.D. 2014 Argued February 10, 2015 School District of Philadelphia and School Reform Commission, Respondents BEFORE
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12-2155 Marvin Orlando Johnson, petitioner, Appellant,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dr. Shirley K. Curl, : Petitioner : : v. : : Solanco School District, : No. 503 C.D. 2006 Respondent : Argued: September 5, 2007 BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J.S15038/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : JUDITH A. HOCKENBERRY, : : No. 1121 MDA
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mark Bittinger, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (Lobar Associates, Inc.), : No. 1927 C.D. 2006 Respondent : Submitted: April 5, 2007
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY DARNELL SMITH, JR., Appellant No. 1314 MDA 2015 Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DORIS DENISE COLON Appellant No. 2895 EDA 2014 Appeal from the
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ANTONIO L. HORNE, SR. Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON AND DOMINIC DEROSE Appellee No. 911 MDA 2015 Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 1617 WDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHELLY ANSELL Appellant No. 1617 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Starwood Airport Realty, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 326 C.D. 2014 : School District of Philadelphia : Argued: December 10, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Blairsville-Saltsburg School District v. Blairsville-Saltsburg Education Association, No. 1340 C.D. 2013 Appellant Argued April 23, 2014 BEFORE HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dolores Bierman, Petitioner v. No. 1336 C.D. 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal Submitted January 16, 2015 Board (Philadelphia National Bank), Respondent Petition
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 100,851. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, HEATHER HOPKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 100,851 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. HEATHER HOPKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When interpreting a statute, the fundamental rule to which all
More information2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U. No. 1-13-3050 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U FIFTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-13-3050 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 167 C.D. 2015 Submitted August 14, 2015 Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Insurance Department, Theresa
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J. S41027/16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : HASAN COLLIER, JR. : Appellant : : No. 3230 EDA
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Reichert, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 42 C.D. 2013 : Argued: October 10, 2013 Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (Dollar Tree Stores/Dollar : Express and
More informationIAC 7/2/08 Parole Board[205] Ch 11, p.1. CHAPTER 11 PAROLE REVOCATION [Prior to 2/22/89, Parole, Board of[615] Ch 7]
IAC 7/2/08 Parole Board[205] Ch 11, p.1 CHAPTER 11 PAROLE REVOCATION [Prior to 2/22/89, Parole, Board of[615] Ch 7] 205 11.1(906) Voluntary termination of parole. Any voluntary termination of parole should
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Linda Gladziszewski, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers Compensation Appeal Board : (PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.), : No. 866 C.D. 2015 Respondent : Submitted:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-1461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-1461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Appellee. ************************************************************** ** ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J. S54036/15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : HOLLY SHAUGHNESSY, : : Appellant : No.
More informationFINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Joseph Pabon (herein Appellant ), appeals the Orange County Court s
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE CASE NO: 2011-AP-32 LOWER COURT CASE NO: 48-2010-MM-12557 JOSEPH PABON, vs. Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mission Funding Alpha, : Petitioner : : v. : : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : No. 313 F.R. 2012 Respondent : Argued: September 16, 2015 BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 1078 WDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JERRY PRATT Appellant No. 1078 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc DENNIS WAYNE CANION, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-04-0243-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 04-0036 THE HONORABLE DAVID R. COLE, )
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILFREDO TERRADO SMITH Appellant No. 371 WDA 2015 Appeal from
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Samuel Toney, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 2343 C.D. 2014 : SUBMITTED: June 19, 2015 Department of Human Services, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William J. Bell : : No. 2034 C.D. 2012 v. : Submitted: April 19, 2013 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Driver Licensing,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IRIS TURNER Appellant No. 3400 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GARY LEE ROSE, Appellant No. 1335 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ESAB Welding & Cutting Products, Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Wallen), No. 60 C.D. 2009 Respondent PER CURIAM O R D E R AND NOW, this 10 th
More informationNo. 1-12-0762 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Selective Insurance Company of SC, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1433 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: January 10, 2014 Bureau of Workers Compensation : Fee Review Hearing Office
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, AARON REGINALD CHAMBERS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0392-PR Filed March 4, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. AARON REGINALD CHAMBERS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0392-PR Filed March 4, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY. Date Submitted: February 6, 2009 Date Decided: December 16, 2009
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ANN M. BAKER, ) ) Defendant-Below, ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 0803038600 ) STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) Plaintiff-Below, ) Appellee.
More informationAN ACT. The goals of the alcohol and drug treatment divisions created under this Chapter include the following:
ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Petitioner v. No. 1188 C.D. 2013 Argued February 11, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Ketterer), Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
More informationA Federal Criminal Case Timeline
A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement
More informationTitle 34-A: CORRECTIONS
Title 34-A: CORRECTIONS Chapter 5: PROBATION AND PAROLE Table of Contents Subchapter 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 3 Section 5001. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section 5002. PARDONS BY THE GOVERNOR... 4 Section 5003. PROHIBITED
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Physical Therapy Institute, Inc., : Petitioner : : v. : No. 71 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: October 10, 2014 Bureau of Workers Compensation : Fee Review Hearing Office
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) ) PETITION TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY (Misdemeanor) I,, respectfully represent
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC04-1461 CANTERO, J. STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Respondent. [July 7, 2005] We must decide whether a court may grant jail-time credit for time spent
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pravco, Inc. and New Jersey : Manufacturers Insurance Company, : Petitioners : : v. : No. 197 C.D. 2015 : SUBMITTED: September 18, 2015 Workers Compensation Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 2500 EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EARL MONROE EDEN Appellant No. 2500 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationGeorge J. Badey, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Robert F. Kelly, Jr., Media, for respondent.
1202 Pa. Moses THOMAS, Petitioner v. WORKERS COMPENSATION AP- PEAL BOARD (DELAWARE COUNTY), Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs Oct. 1, 1999. Decided Feb. 25, 2000. Following
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Garri Aminov, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers' Compensation : Appeal Board (Herman E. Ewell), : No. 311 C.D. 2013 Respondent : Submitted: June 7, 2013 BEFORE:
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Kristine Smith Spence, R.N., : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1692 C.D. 2009 : Bureau of Professional and : Submitted: January 22, 2010 Occupational Affairs, : Respondent
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carl Whitehead, : Appellant : : No. 1075 C.D. 2014 v. : : Submitted: November 14, 2014 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. v. Plaintiff-Appellant, JAMES W. FRENCH, a/k/a JAMES WILLIAMS
More informationv. Record No. 990821 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER January 14, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices BRIGITTE MERCER v. Record No. 990821 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER January 14, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS Verbena
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Easton Condominium Association, : Inc. : : v. : No. 2015 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: August 28, 2015 Kristina A. Nash, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. : : LAWRENCE JUSTIN MORRISON, : No. 2030 WDA 2014 : Appellant : Appeal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 04-1461. Lower Tribunal No. 4D04-1180 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 04-1461 Lower Tribunal No. 4D04-1180 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Respondent. RESPONDENT=S BRIEF ON THE MERITS Bianca G. Liston, Esquire James
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carmel Bouman, No. 1262 C.D. 2014 Petitioner Submitted November 14, 2014 v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
More informationRULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX
RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX Form 6. Suggested Questions to Be Put by the Court to an Accused Who Has Pleaded Guilty (Rule 3A:8). Before accepting
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Mobarak, 2015-Ohio-3007.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 14AP-517 (C.P.C. No. 12CR-5582) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Soleiman
More informationFILED December 18, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 150340-U NO. 4-15-0340
More informationMontana Legislative Services Division Legal Services Office. Memorandum
Montana Legislative Services Division Legal Services Office PO BOX 201706 Helena, MT 59620-1706 (406) 444-3064 FAX (406) 444-3036 Memorandum To: Law and Justice Interim Committee From: Julianne Burkhardt
More informationFILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.: 1D05-4610
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.: 1D05-4610
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES LEE TROUTMAN Appellant No. 3477 EDA 2015 Appeal from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2015 August 17, 2015 CHESTER LOYDE BIRD, Appellant (Defendant), v. S-15-0059 THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). Representing
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Selective Way Insurance Company, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 429 F.R. 2008 : Argued: October 13, 2010 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-0415 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Shannon
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Department of Corrections/State Correctional Institution-Somerset, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Kirchner), No. 2700 C.D. 2001
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 23, 2012 at Knoxville
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 23, 2012 at Knoxville STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MISTY LYNN NANNEY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Nos.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D. 2006 : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant :
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D. 2006 : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs November 04, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs November 04, 2014 WILLIAM NEWSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C13358 Roy B. Morgan,
More informationFrequently Asked Questions on 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment
Frequently Asked Questions on 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment AB 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011) as subsequently amended by AB 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011) and ABX1 17 (Chapter 12, Statutes
More informationThe Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court I. General Information The juvenile and domestic relations district court handles cases involving: Juveniles accused of delinquent acts, traffic infractions
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON WILLIAM CICHETTI Appellant No. 1465 MDA 2012 Appeal from
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ann Wilson, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 659 C.D. 2008 : No. 660 C.D. 2008 Travelers Insurance Company and : Allied Signal, Inc. : Submitted: October 30, 2009 BEFORE:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL N. LOPEZ, No. 606, 2013 Defendant Below- Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County STATE OF DELAWARE,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2006-CP-00012-COA JAMES RAY EDGE, JR. A/K/A BUDDY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2006-CP-00012-COA JAMES RAY EDGE, JR. A/K/A BUDDY APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/08/2005 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. SHARION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 10/21/2013 :
[Cite as State v. McCoy, 2013-Ohio-4647.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-04-033 : O P I N I O N - vs - 10/21/2013
More informationMatter of Gonzalez v Rabsatt 2013 NY Slip Op 32581(U) October 21, 2013 Sup Ct, St. Lawrence County Docket Number: 141680 Judge: S.
Matter of Gonzalez v Rabsatt 2013 NY Slip Op 32581(U) October 21, 2013 Sup Ct, St. Lawrence County Docket Number: 141680 Judge: S. Peter Feldstein Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Charles Greenawalt, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1894 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: March 21, 2014 Workers' Compensation : Appeal Board (Bristol Environmental, : Inc.),
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jim Bishop, d/b/a : Bishop Agri Business and : State Workers Insurance Fund, : Petitioners : : v. : No. 974 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: September 20, 2013 Workers Compensation
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 11, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 11, 2015 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DUSTY ROSS BINKLEY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2009-I-833 Steve R. Dozier,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELIJAH BERNAND EDGE, JR., APPEAL OF: JAMES P. FABIE, BAIL BONDSMAN,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SCOTT USEVICZ, Appellant No. 414 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41952 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41952 MICHAEL T. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 634 Filed: September 16, 2015 Stephen
More informationCase 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Evelyn Witkin, M.D., : Petitioner : : No. 1313 C.D. 2012 v. : : Submitted: February 1, 2013 Bureau of Workers Compensation : Fee Review Hearing Office (State :
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : CHRISTOPHER KORNICKI : CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION : Appellants, : MARCH TERM, 2006 : No. 2735 v. : : Superior Court
More informationIn re the Matter of: ROBIN LIN IULIANO, Petitioner/Appellant, CARL WLOCH, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0638
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40822 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40822 DAMON MARCELINO LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 722 Filed: September 15, 2014 Stephen
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C R I M I N A L
Commonwealth v. Harsh Nos. 3881-2005, 4695-2014 Ashworth, J. February 19, 2015 Criminal Drug Court Probation Violation DUI Possession of Drug Paraphernalia Guilty Plea Post Sentence Motion to Modify Discretionary
More information