For the Defense - Vol. 4, Issue 2 - 25

an appeal upon his return. If the time for filing
has elapsed, he/she no longer has the right to
appeal, regardless of whether counsel filed a
notice of appeal in the defendant's absence.
The Court's decision was unanimous, and
unfortunately contrary to PACDL's position.
Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas, Bucks
County, No. 14-7004, U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, Amicus filed November 3,
2017 (Defender Association of Philadelphia and
PACDL Joint Amicus Brief), decided February 27,
2019.
In this case, the Court granted a certificate of
appealability and examined whether a habeas
corpus petitioner who was subject only to
registration requirements under Pennsylvania's
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
("SORNA") when he filed his petition was "in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
Court," as required for jurisdiction. The Court
held that the registration requirements were
sufficiently restrictive to constitute custody and
that they were imposed pursuant to the state
court judgment of sentence. The Third Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
determination that the case should be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
Commonwealth v. Gill, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa.
2019); 65 WAP 2017 Amicus filed February 2018,
decided March 26, 2019.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted
this Petition for Allowance of Appeal in order
to review whether the Superior Court properly
applied the "abuse of discretion" standard
of review when, in a published opinion, the
Superior Court reversed a trial court order
granting a defendant's motion in limine to
admit evidence of a subsequent similar crime
committed by another individual. The trial court
allowed the defendant to introduce evidence of
a burglary committed by someone else since the
burglary was significantly similar to the burglary
that the defendant was charged with. The Court
concluded that the Superior Court misapplied
the standard of review and reversed in part and
vacated in part the Superior Court's judgment.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the
appellant's argument to adopt a new more
lenient test for a trial court to apply when a
defendant wishes to present evidence that
someone else committed the crime for which
he is charged with perpetrating. However, the
court declined to address this issue and granted
allowance of appeal only on the narrow issue of
whether the Superior Court properly applied the
appropriate standard of review in reversing the
trial court's order.

New Cases in which PACDL Submitted
an Amicus Since October 2018
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Commonwealth v. Ford, 46 MAP 2018, Amicus
filed February 26, 2019 (Defender Association of
Philadelphia and PACDL Joint Amicus Brief).
Nature of the Case: The defendant was
assessed fines and court costs of over $4,400
without a determination of whether he is or
will be able to pay such fines and costs. The
Commonwealth argued that the fine was
imposed as part of a plea agreement, and as
such, the defendant must abide by all the terms
of the agreement, despite the fact that the
imposition of such a fine is in contradiction with
42 Pa. C.S. § 9726.
PACDL Amicus Argument:
1. The Judge violated his mandatory statutory
duty when he accepted a proposed plea
agreement that contained a fine without
determining whether the defendant had the
ability to pay that fine.
2. Rule 706 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
prohibits a judge from imposing costs
without first determining whether they
should be reduced or waived based on
financial means and an inability to pay.
Status: Pending
Authors: Leonard N. Sosnov, Esq., Karl Baker,
Esq., and Keir Bradford-Grey, Esq.

Vol. 4, Issue 2

l

For The Defense

25
For the Defense - Vol. 4, Issue 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 4, Issue 2
