Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
Attorney Goldstein Wins Motion to Quash First-Degree Murder Case
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won the dismissal of all charges in a first-degree murder case by successfully litigating a Motion to Quash (also known as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus). In the case of Commonwealth v. M.B., the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge dismissed all of the charges against M.B. after Attorney Goldstein moved for dismissal on the grounds that the Commonwealth had failed to present a prima facie case of the client’s participation in a homicide at the preliminary hearing.
In M.B., prosecutors alleged that the defendant, his brother, and their cousin had been at a block party in Southwest Philadelphia. At some point, the defendant became involved in a verbal argument with the decedent. The defendant’s brother and the man began fighting, and the defendant briefly jumped into the fight. Other partygoers broke up the fight, and the defendant, his brother, and their cousin left. The decedent also left the party shortly thereafter and went home.
A few hours later, the defendant, his brother, and their cousin went to the man’s house, which was not far from where the block party had been taking place. Surveillance video showed them entering the block prior to the shooting and leaving shortly thereafter. Witnesses testified at the preliminary hearing that as they approached the house, the brother told the defendant and the cousin to go sit down across the street, which they did. The brother then knocked on the decedent’s door. The decedent opened the door and began cursing at the brother. The brother pulled out a loaded handgun and shot him one time in the torso, killing him. The brother then crossed the street, and the three of them all left. Surveillance footage showed them walking off of the block together.
Investigators eventually recommended homicide charges against M.B. despite the fact that he had not been the shooter and had done nothing more than wait across the street while his brother went over to the house. They declined to charge the cousin. They also obviously charged the shooter, but they had not located him at the time of M.B.’s preliminary hearing.
The Philadelphia Municipal Court conducted a preliminary hearing in the case against M.B. while M.B. was represented by different counsel, and the Court held M.B. for court on charges of first-degree murder and conspiracy. Essentially, the Commonwealth argued, and the Court agreed, that M.B. must have conspired with his brother to kill the decedent and told his brother where the decedent lived. Therefore, because conspiracy can potentially result in liability for the underlying substantive criminal offense, the Court held M.B. over for trial on the murder and conspiracy charges. If convicted, M.B. would be facing a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole.
M.B. retained Attorney Goldstein following the preliminary hearing. Attorney Goldstein promptly obtained the transcript from the preliminary hearing and filed a Motion to Quash. A Motion to Quash asks the Court of Common Pleas judge to review the findings of the Municipal Court judge or magistrate and dismiss the charges because the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendant actually committed a crime. Here, the defense argued that M.B. had done nothing more than walk with his brother to the decedent’s house. There was no evidence that M.B. knew what his brother was going to do, encouraged his brother to do it, or had actually been the person who provided his brother with the decedent’s address. Further, the Commonwealth had declined to charge the cousin with the shooting. Thus, the evidence showed that it was just as likely as not that the men had gone over to the house to talk to the decedent and resolve the issues from the block party instead of going there to shoot him. Even if the brother planned to shoot the decedent, there was simply no evidence that M.B. had encouraged or facilitated it in any way. Instead, the evidence suggested that the brother may have gotten mad when the decedent opened the door and began cursing at him and acted on his own.
The Common Pleas judge reviewed the transcript, watched the video from the surveillance cameras, and held a hearing for both sides to make argument. The judge agreed with Attorney Goldstein that the evidence showed only that M.B. had been merely present at the scene of a crime. Under Pennsylvania law, it is well-established that mere presence alone is not enough to infer that a person was part of a criminal conspiracy or intended for the crime to occur. Therefore, the judge dismissed all charges against M.B. in this first-degree murder case.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein
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 at trial and on appeal. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, VUFA, PWID, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta Rated 2019 Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta Selected to 2019 Super Lawyers
Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. and Demetra P. Mehta, Esq., Criminal Defense Attorneys at Goldstein Mehta LLC, have been named to the 2019 Pennsylvania Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state.
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process, which results in a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in their practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to SuperLawyers.com.
loading ...
loading ...
PA Supreme Court: Posting Photos of Drugs, Guns, and Money on Social Media May Not Be a Probation Violation
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Foster, holding that a criminal defendant may not be found in violation of probation without a proper finding by the trial court that the defendant violated a specific condition of probation. In this case, the violation of probation was based solely on the defendant’s decision to post photos of guns, drugs, and money on social media. Because the Commonwealth did not introduce any evidence that the defendant was actually in possession of the contraband or that the terms of probation specifically prohibited from posting these types of things on social media, the Supreme Court held that the defendant should not have been found to have violated his probation.
The Facts of Foster
In Foster, the defendant pleaded guilty to Possession with the Intent to Deliver of a controlled substance. He received a sentence of four years’ probation. Shortly after he started his probation, he posted photos on his social media accounts which depicted guns, drugs, and large amounts of money. The photos also included his sentencing sheet from the PWID case. The defendant’s probation officer detained him, and the trial court held a hearing on whether the defendant had violated his probation despite the fact that he had not been convicted of any new crimes and had been reporting, testing negative for drugs, and seeking employment as required.
The trial court found the defendant in violation of his probation and sentenced him to 11.5 – 23 months’ incarceration followed by a new period of probation. At the hearing, the Commonwealth essentially produced only the photographs that the defendant had posted on social media. The photographs did not show the defendant actually in possession of the drugs, money, or guns. The Commonwealth argued that he was using his social media account “as an ad agency to sell drugs” and that he was continuing to engage in illegal activity. The prosecutor further argued that the photos showed that he had no respect for the court or for probation and that he should be sentenced to a period of incarceration.
The defendant responded by admitting that the accounts in question were his, but he asserted that he had merely downloaded the photographs from the internet and re-posted them in order to show off for friends. He denied that he had ever been in possession of any contraband since starting his probation. The Commonwealth did not introduce any evidence to rebut the defendant’s position. Essentially, the defense argued that the defendant should have been smarter in terms of what he posted on the internet, but he had not violated the terms of his probation merely by showing off for friends on social media because nothing in the law governing probation or the actual terms of his probation which were provided by the probation department prohibited him from posting on social media.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court accepted the Commonwealth’s position, revoked probation, and sentenced the defendant to jail. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which affirmed the order revoking his probation, and the defendant filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to accept the case.
Is it a violation of probation to post photos of drugs and guns on social media?
Probably not. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the trial court had erred in finding the defendant in violation of his probation because there was no evidence that he had committed a new crime, violated a specific term of his probation, or actually been in possession of contraband. The Commonwealth’s bare assertions that it must have been the defendant holding the contraband in the photographs were not sufficient to prove that he had not in fact downloaded the photos from the internet and simply re-shared them.
The Supreme Court noted that when a trial court places a defendant on probation, the court must specify the length of the term of the probation at the time of sentencing. The court must also identify which conditions of probation the defendant must follow. The law provides a number of potential conditions from which a court may choose. For example, a court may properly require a defendant:
1) To meet his family responsibilities.
2) To devote himself to a specific occupation or employment.
3) To participate in a public or nonprofit community service program unless the defendant was convicted of murder, rape, aggravated assault, arson, theft by extortion, terroristic threats, robbery or kidnapping.
4) To undergo available medical or psychiatric treatment and to enter and remain in a specified institution, when required for that purpose.
5) To pursue a prescribed secular course of study or vocational training.
6) To attend or reside in a facility established for the instruction, recreation, or residence of persons on probation.
7) To refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places or consorting with disreputable persons.
8) To have in his possession no firearm or dangerous weapon unless granted written permission.
9) To make restitution of the fruits for his crime or to make reparations, in an amount he can afford to pay, for the loss or damage caused thereby.
10) To remain within the jurisdiction of the court and to notify the court or the probation officer of any change in his address or his employment.
11) To report as directed to the court or the probation officer and to permit the probation officer to visit his home.
12) To pay such fine as has been imposed.
13) To participate in drug or alcohol treatment programs.
14) To satisfy any other conditions reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience.
15) To remain within the premises of his residence during the hours designated by the court.
Further, the statute provides when a court may find a defendant in revocation. It provides:
“The court may revoke an order of probation upon proof of the violation of specified conditions of the probation. Upon revocation the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing, due consideration being given to the time spent serving the order of probation.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling
Here, the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the defense on appeal that the defendant had not violated a specific term of probation. Nothing in the statute or the orders which the probation department had actually given him dictated that he could not post photos of drugs and guns on the internet. Therefore, the Court reversed the order finding the defendant in violation of his probation, vacated the jail sentence, and remanded the case back to the trial court.
It is important to note that in this case, the Commonwealth could not actually prove that the defendant possessed the guns, drugs, or cash, and the rules did not specifically prohibit him from posting these types of photos. If the Commonwealth had been able to show that he did have those things in his possession, then the Commonwealth may have been successful in proving a probation violation even if it did not proceed against the defendant on new charges. Likewise, it may be possible for probation to prohibit a defendant from engaging in this type of behavior in the future, although such rules could raise free speech concerns. Therefore, it is extremely important for a probationer to closely review the rules of probation or parole at the beginning of the supervision period and to seek experienced criminal defense counsel in the event of a potential violation.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Philadelphia 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 at trial and on appeal. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, VUFA, PWID, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
PA Superior Court: Mental Health Issues Do Not Automatically Toll Deadline for Filing PCRA Petition
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Shaw, finding that bare assertions of mental health issues do not automatically toll the deadline for filing a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition.
Do mental health issues justify a delay in filing a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition?
In Shaw, the defendant was convicted of third-degree murder and related charges. The trial court sentenced him to 36 to 72 years’ incarceration. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which affirmed, and he also filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
The defendant failed to file a timely PCRA Petition. Instead, he waited nearly seven years before filing a pro se Petition seeking a new trial. In most circumstances, PCRA Petitions must be filed within a year of the date on which the defendant’s sentence became final. When the defendant appeals to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the defendant has one year and three months from the date on which the Court denies the appeal to file a PCRA Petition. Because the defendant waited more than a year and three months to file, the trial court dismissed the Petition as untimely.
The defendant appealed after the trial court dismissed the Petition as untimely. The defendant argued that he was mentally incapacitated throughout the period during which he could have filed a timely PCRA Petition. He claimed that he had presented extensive testimony at trial relating to his mental health problems and that his mental disorders affected his capacity to initiate and participate in PCRA litigation. He claimed that he suffered from a diagnosed psychotic disorder and paranoia, and that he had previously been committed to Norristown State Hospital prior to trial. He therefore argued that the Court should have held an evidentiary hearing on whether he was completely mentally incompetent during the one year and three-month period for filing a timely PCRA such that the delay should be excused.
What are the exceptions to the PCRA’s deadlines?
The Superior Court rejected the defendant’s arguments. The Court noted that there are three statutory exceptions to the one-year deadline for filing a PCRA. In order to qualify for an exception, a petitioner must show:
(i) the failure to raise a claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.
Further, under current law, a petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file the petition within sixty days of when the claim could first have been presented.
The Superior Court’s Decision
In general, broad claims of mental illness do not satisfy an exception to the PCRA time-bar. However, in Commonwealth v. Cruz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that although the PCRA does not include an exception for mental incapacity, there are some circumstances in which a PCRA Petitioner’s mental incompetence may qualify under the statutory newly-discovered fact exception. The general rule, however, remains that mental illness or psychological condition, without more, is not enough to get around the time bar.
Therefore, the Court rejected the PCRA Petition. It agreed with the trial court that unlike the defendant in Cruz, who had been effectively lobotomized, the defendant here had shown nothing more than a history of mental illness and a learning disability. This did not rise to the same level as the issues in Cruz, and therefore, the petition was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If the defendant had shown that his mental health problems got worse while in custody, then he may have been entitled to relief, but he was unable to do that.
Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.
Philadelphia 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 at trial and on appeal. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, VUFA, PWID, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.