PA Supreme Court: Time Spent in Custody on Probation Detainer Should Apply to New Case Even if Bail Paid

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Phillips, holding that the defendant should have received credit for time served on a new case where he was held in custody only on a probation detainer on a prior case because he had paid bail on the new case. Therefore, he would have been released but for the detainer. Generally, defendants are only entitled to time credit on the cases that are actually holding them in custody, so under prior statutory interpretations, he would not have been entitled to time credit on the new case because that case was not holding him in custody once he paid bail. The time credit statute, however, deals with conduct rather than cases, and the conduct that led to the new case also triggered the probation detainer. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that he was entitled to time credit on the new case even though he had posted bail.

The Facts of Phillips

The defendant was serving a probationary sentence from a 2015 case involving DUI and resisting arrest when he was arrested in 2018 for aggravated assault. Although his mother posted his bail for the 2018 case, he remained incarcerated because a probation detainer was lodged against him in connection with the earlier case. He was still on probation at the time of his arrest for the assault, leading to the detainer.

The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in the 2018 case and received a sentence of 27 to 72 months’ incarceration in state prison. At the same time, the sentencing court revoked his probation in the 2015 DUI case and imposed a consecutive two-year probationary sentence, meaning that he did not need any time credit from the time spent in prison to go to that case because he received a non-incarceration sentence. Nonetheless, because he had posted bail on the case, the trial court did not award him credit for the nearly eight months he spent incarcerated on the probation detainer between May 2018 and January 2019 before his sentencing on the assault.

The defendant ultimately sought relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), arguing that under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1), he was entitled to credit for all of that time spent in custody. The PCRA court gave him partial credit of 237 days, but it refused to credit the time he spent incarcerated solely on the probation detainer. The Superior Court affirmed on appeal, reasoning that because he was held only on the detainer during that period, the credit could not be applied to the assault case. The defendant sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed. Justice Mundy, writing for a unanimous Court, explained that Section 9760(1) requires credit for “all time spent in custody as a result of the criminal charge for which a prison sentence is imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such a charge is based.”

The Court found that the defendant’s detention on the probation detainer was directly triggered by the same conduct, the assault, that led to the aggravated assault conviction. Because the detainer would not have been lodged but for the new charges, the time he spent incarcerated from May 2018 to January 2019 was “a result of the conduct” underlying the assault.

The Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that credit should not apply because the detainer related to his earlier resisting arrest conviction. It emphasized that the statute does not require the conduct to be the sole cause of confinement. Reading the statute narrowly, as the Commonwealth urged, would improperly insert limitations not found in the statutory text.

Accordingly, the Court held that the defendant was entitled to have all of his pre-sentence confinement credited toward his 2018 assault sentence. Although it appeared he had already completed that sentence, the Court remanded for a determination of whether relief could still be awarded.

The Takeaway

This decision clarifies that defendants are entitled to credit for all pre-sentence confinement when that custody results from the same conduct that led to the new charges, even if they were technically held on a probation detainer rather than bail. The ruling ensures that defendants are not punished twice by losing credit simply because a probation violation and new charges arise from the same incident. In general, it is best to avoid situations like this by not posting bail when a probation detainer is in place, but now this is one less trap for defense attorneys to have to worry about.

Facing Criminal Charges or Appealing a Criminal Case?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelph1ia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorn2ey today.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Approves Use of Google Geofence Warrants in Criminal Cases

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has issued an important decision on digital privacy and criminal investigations. In Commonwealth v. Choice, the Court considered, for the first time, whether police may use geofence warrants to obtain Google location history data even though the warrants, by definition, do not identify a particular suspect. These warrants require Google to search its database for any devices present in a particular area during a specific time period. The Superior Court ultimately upheld the use of the geofence warrant and the conviction, finding that the warrants were sufficiently narrow (particular) and supported by probable cause.

The Facts of the Case

In January 2019, a nurse was driving his Toyota Tundra northbound on Route 309 in Montgomery County when he was suddenly shot in the arm. The complainant immediately called 911 while following the suspect’s maroon vehicle. Although he was able to give a description and even followed the vehicle for over a mile, he could not identify the license plate before losing sight of the car, leaving the police with few suspects.

Trooper Eugene Tray of the Pennsylvania State Police was assigned to investigate. With little physical evidence tying a suspect to the shooting, Trooper Tray applied for a geofence warrant in December 2020. The warrant asked Google to provide anonymized location history data for any devices within a defined stretch of Route 309 and the Highland Avenue exit ramp between 9:20 and 9:27 p.m., which was the time when the shooting occurred.

In response, Google provided an anonymized list of device IDs. Trooper Tray determined that one of the mobile devices matched the movements of the suspect’s car. He then obtained a second warrant compelling Google to disclose the subscriber information for that device. Google linked the phone to the defendant, who was later charged with aggravated assault. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrants amounted to unconstitutional “general searches” of millions of Google accounts. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant was convicted in a stipulated bench trial. He appealed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Ruling

On appeal, the defendant argued that the warrants failed both the probable cause requirement and the constitutional limits on overbroad searches. He claimed there was no individualized suspicion that the shooter had a cell phone, let alone one running Android software with Google location services enabled. He also argued that the process gave law enforcement unlimited discretion because it allowed them to sift through unrelated device data.

The Superior Court rejected these arguments. The Court emphasized that cell phone use is so pervasive that it is reasonable to assume most people, including criminal suspects, carry one. Combined with the precise details provided by the victim during his 911 call, the Court found there was a “fair probability” that Google’s location history data would produce relevant evidence.

The Court also concluded that the warrants were not overbroad. Unlike warrants that sweep up months of data or large geographic areas, this one was carefully limited to two short road segments and a seven-minute time window. Moreover, because Google anonymized the data before handing it over, police could not arbitrarily rummage through personal information. Officers were required to return to court for a second warrant to obtain the identity of the one device they believed was relevant.

Notably, this was a mater of first impression for a Pennsylvania appellate court. Other courts, such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, have found that geofence warrants are unconstitutional. Accordingly, this issue may be reviewed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court.

The Takeaway

This case is a significant development in Pennsylvania law. It shows that courts are prepared to approve geofence warrants where police can identify the precise location and timeframe of a crime. Prosecutors will likely seek this type of data more frequently in serious cases ranging from shootings to robberies and other violent offenses.

At the same time, the decision highlights the tension between privacy rights and investigative technology. Defense attorneys should continue to challenge geofence warrants as unconstitutional general searches, and future cases, including those currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court such as Commonwealth v. Kurtz, may further refine the law. For now, however, defendants should expect prosecutors to use Google location data when it is available.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects Challenge to Use of Preliminary Hearing Transcript and Related Exhibits Against Defendant at Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Johnson. The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction based on the use of the preliminary hearing testimony and accompanying exhibits against him at trial. The Court ruled the the use of the prior sworn testimony and related exhibits did not violate the rules of evidence or the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause because the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing.

Facts and Procedural History

The police alleged the defendant exited a green Pontiac and fired multiple shots, striking the target and an innocent bystander. The target’s pregnant girlfriend initially identified the defendant and the driver from photo arrays and gave a signed statement to police.

At the preliminary hearing, however, the girlfriend largely recanted. She admitted signing the statement and the photo arrays but testified that she had been hiding and did not actually see who fired the gun. Before trial, she became unavailable despite the Commonwealth’s efforts to find her. The Commonwealth sent police officers to try to find her and bring her to court, but they were unsuccessful, and she never appeared for trial. The trial court therefore permitted the Commonwealth to introduce her preliminary hearing testimony, her signed police statement, and the photo arrays despite the defendant’s hearsay and confrontation objections.

A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and multiple firearm offenses. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 25–50 years’ incarceration. He appealed.

The Issues on Appeal

Proceeding pro se, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting the girlfriend’s signed police statement and her photo array identifications as substantive evidence at trial. He contended that their admission violated both Pennsylvania’s evidentiary rules against hearsay and his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court affirmed. The panel emphasized that:

• Pa.R.E. 803.1 permits admission of prior inconsistent statements if the declarant testified and was subject to cross-examination at the prior proceeding.

• Pa.R.E. 804(b)(1) allows former testimony to be admitted when the witness is unavailable, provided the opposing party had a similar motive and opportunity to cross-examine.

• The girlfriend testified at the preliminary hearing, was confronted with her prior statements by the defense attorney, and was subject to cross-examination. This satisfied both the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause.

The Court relied heavily on Commonwealth v. Stays, where a similar recantation and later unavailability led to admission of prior statements. The Court also explained that even if admitting the girlfriend’s written police statement had been error, it was harmless, because her preliminary hearing testimony already included a verbatim reading of that statement.

The Takeaway

This case highlights the importance of preliminary hearing testimony in Pennsylvania criminal cases. Even when a witness recants at the hearing and later becomes unavailable, their prior identifications and statements may still be admitted at trial if the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine them. For defendants, this means a recantation does not necessarily prevent the jury from hearing the original identification.

Facing Criminal Charges or Appealing a Criminal Case?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Superior Court: A Defendant Can Conspire to Commit Second-Degree Murder

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Wellman, holding that conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a cognizable offense under Pennsylvania law. The Court held both that the offense exists in Pennsylvania and that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of Wellman

The case arose out of a violent robbery which occurred on October 5, 2019, in Philadelphia. The Commonwealth alleged that the defendant and his brother entered an apartment, brandishing a handgun and what appeared to be a rifle. They robbed several occupants of their wallets, phones, and valuables. When the decedent resisted, the defendant pressed a handgun to the decedent’s head and fatally shot him. Police later apprehended the brothers in a nearby alley. The police recovered stolen items, discarded clothing, and a revolver with gunshot residue in it.

The police arrested the defendant, and prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and firearms offenses. He went to trial, and the jury found him guilty. He received a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for the murder, as well as a consecutive five-to-ten year sentence for robbery.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the defendant’s attorney initially filed an Anders brief, which is a brief indicating that the attorney did not think the defendant had a single viable appeal issue. These should almost never be filed following a trial, especially in a murder case. Accordingly, the Superior Court rejected the Anders brief and directed the attorney to file a new brief for the appeal. The Superior Court had identified a potentially non-frivolous issue: whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. In a new brief, the defendant argued that he and his brother only agreed to commit a robbery, not murder. The Commonwealth actually went further and argued in its brief that conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is not even a cognizable crime, meaning it does not exist. The Commonwealth did not move to vacate the substantive murder conviction, but it did argue that the Court should vacate the conspiracy conviction.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court rejected both positions:

• Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court held that the robbery agreement, carried out with firearms and escalating violence, supported the inference that the brothers entered into a conspiracy that encompassed second-degree murder. Even without an express plan to kill, the inherently dangerous felony and Wellman’s use of a firearm made the risk of death foreseeable.

• Cognizability of the Offense: Relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Fisher, 80 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2013), the Court concluded that conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a legally valid offense. Just as one can conspire to commit third-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter, one can conspire to commit felony murder by agreeing to engage in conduct that carries a wanton disregard for life.

The Court therefore affirmed Wellman’s life sentence and rejected the Commonwealth’s somewhat unexpected argument to vacate the conviction.

Takeaway

This decision settles an open question in Pennsylvania law: conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a cognizable offense. Defendants charged under this theory cannot avoid liability by arguing that felony murder is “unintentional.” If conspirators agree to commit a dangerous felony like armed robbery, they may be held liable not just for the robbery, but also for any resulting deaths. This is true even where no specific intent to kill is proven.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.