Your Custom Text Here
In this recent decision, the Superior Court held that, in order for a defendant to be eligible for early parole, the trial court must indicate as much on the record at sentencing. Failure to do so deprives the trial court of the authority to grant early parole at a later date. Thus, in order to give a client a shot at early parole in the future, Counsel must request that the trial judge state on the record, at sentencing, that the client is eligible for early parole.
As the Tribune-Review reported yesterday, the Pennsylvania House is preparing to vote on a Bill that will require first-time DUI offenders to purchase an ignition interlock system as well as obtain a modified license that identifies the driver as a person required to use an ignition interlock. The Bill was already unanimously passed by the Senate. If/when officially enacted into law, the Bill will significantly increase the penalties for first-time DUI offenders. Indeed, it will increase the already tremendously high costs of a first-time DUI offense by another $1,200 (the price to install and maintain the ignition interlock). The modified license requirement will also pin a scarlet letter on a DUI offender for 12 months, which isn’t likely to help his or her employment prospects.
Commonwealth v. Konias, 2016 PA Super 68
In Konias, Defense Counsel, who had been privately retained, filed multiple motions seeking Court funds to retain experts based on his client’s indigency. The Trial Court denied the Motions and the Superior Court affirmed. While the result itself is unremarkable, the path the Superior Court took to get there is important. The Court first noted that “merely retaining private counsel does not, in itself, establish” that a defendant is not entitled to Court payment of other defense costs. However, in this particular case, private Defense Counsel, in filing his requests for funds to hire experts, failed to provide enough financial information about his client to prove to the Trial Court that his client was indeed indigent.
Commonwealth v. Kelly, --- A.3d ---, 2016 WL 2016 WL 638716 (Pa. Super., Feb. 8, 2016)
When it comes to a defendant’s procedural rights in the criminal justice system, the right to have one’s case heard by a fair and impartial jury is one of the most important. Consistent with that right, during the jury selection process that occurs before trial, the defense can ask that a potential juror be struck from the jury in situations where the juror likely cannot be fair and impartial. This case is important as it helps to define when a juror should be struck because of an inability to be fair and impartial.
In fact, in this case, the Superior Court reversed the defendant’s multiple murder convictions because it found that the trial court abused it discretion in failing to strike a juror for cause. Notably, that juror was an active police officer who was currently working on cases with the prosecutor’s office; under these circumstances, of course he couldn’t help but be biased in favor of the prosecution.
Our system is process-oriented; this decision will help ensure that the process is respected.
Call or Text 412.238.7820 | Email office@robperkinslaw.com
