For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 4 - 2017 - 36

New Cases Pending Before the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court in which an Amicus Brief has
been Submitted by PACDL
Commw. v. Delgros: Amicus Filed: August 10,
2017 (Defender Association of Philadelphia and
PACDL Joint Amicus)
Nature of the case: The defendant was
charged with taking I-Beams from a construction company and was accused of continuously
possessing stolen property for approximately
thirteen years. The defendant was convicted of
receiving stolen property with a value greater
than $2,000, a felony of the third degree, after
a trial by jury. The defendant was sentenced
to pay restitution in the amount of $2,800 and
a fine of $15,000. No further sentence was
imposed. New counsel filed a timely post-sentence motion, alleging, among other things,
trial counsel's ineffectiveness. In relevant part,
the trial court refused to consider the ineffectiveness claim, ruling that the Post-Conviction
Relief Act ("PCRA") was the only avenue to
raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
and that the defendant was ineligible for such
relief under the PCRA because his sentence
involved only fines, restitution and costs. The
Superior Court affirmed.
Allocatur grant: "Do this Court's decisions
regarding the deferral of claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel to post-conviction collateral review, and the limited exceptions thereto,
apply to convictions resulting in non-custodial
sentences imposing a fine only, and do Due
Process considerations require some opportunity to raise such claim?"
Status: Pending. On argument list for
November 28, 2017
Amicus Authors: Leonard Sosnov, Karl Baker
and Keir Bradford-Grey of the Defender
Association of Philadelphia

For The Defense | Vol. 2, Issue 4

In re: AA: Amicus Filed: September 20, 2017
Nature of the case: A.A. was observed by a
police officer driving a car that was straddling
the center line. After following A.A. and
conducting a check on the vehicle registration,
the officer learned that the vehicle registration
was expired. The car was stopped, and the
officer obtained A.A.'s driver's license and
expired registration. A.A. was not able to
provide proof of financial responsibility. The
officer cited A.A. for the expired registration
and provided a warning for failure to provide
proof of financial responsibility. The officer
returned the documents, bid A.A. goodnight
and broke contact. Before A.A. had a chance
to leave, the officer re-engaged A.A. and asked
her whether there was anything illegal in the
car. A.A. responded "no," and asked the officer
if he wanted to search the vehicle. The officer
indicated that he did, at which time the passenger indicated that there was a marijuana
pipe in the car, and that he and A.A. had
smoked marijuana. The officer searched the car
and found contraband. A.A. was charged. At
the suppression hearing, the officer testified
that he re-engaged A.A. after the traffic stop
because "[i]t's just best practice." The officer
elaborated, "It's just best practice. Even if I had
stopped somebody and we were trying to get a
consent search, it's just best practice." The trial
court found nothing unconstitutional with the
officer's conduct. The Superior Court affirmed.
Although the Superior Court found that A.A.
was detained and continued to be seized when
the officer re-engaged A.A., the court concluded that the facts learned during the traffic
stop could justify a continued seizure. To reach
this conclusion, the Superior Court followed its
en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Kemp.
The A.A. Court refused to follow its decision
in Commonwealth v. Nguyen, in which a panel
held that "[w]here the investigative detention
at issue follows a lawful traffic stop, the officer
must demonstrate cause for suspicion after the
end of the initial stop, and independent of any
basis on which he conducted the prior stop."

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 4 - 2017