Commonwealth v. Noss

10 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Miller

    2022 Pa. Super. 11 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    "We will not disturb the lower court's issuance of a writ of certiorari unless we find an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Noss, 162 A.3d 503, 507 (Pa. Super. 2017). "[C]ertiorari provides a narrow scope of review in a summary criminal matter and allows review solely for questions of law." Id.

  2. Commonwealth v. Santiago

    2022 Pa. Super. 10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022)   Cited 7 times

    While Pennsylvania law is largely silent on the procedure necessary to appoint a police officer as the Commonwealth's designee under Rule 551, this Court has previously held that a police officer does not become a designee simply by virtue of his mere presence at a proceeding. See Commonwealth v. Noss, 162 A.3d 503, 508 (Pa.Super. 2017) ("Appellant offers no rule, regulation, statute, case, or evidence to support the position that a police officer is automatically a designee of an attorney for the Commonwealth pursuant to [Rule] 551."). While there does not appear to be a bright-line rule regarding Rule 551 designation, Noss indicates that some documentation or corroboration is required to establish the existence of such a delegation of authority by the Commonwealth to a peace officer.Id.

  3. Commonwealth v. Hicks

    2738 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 27, 2024)

    Commonwealth v. Noss, 162 A.3d 503, 507 (Pa. Super. 2017).

  4. In re L.S.F.-K.

    839 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2024)

    With respect to the third prong of Section 2511(a)(8), to the extent that Mother fails to present any argument, it is waived. See Mother's Brief at 21-23; see also Commonwealth v. Noss, 162 A.3d 503, 509 (Pa. Super. 2017) (finding waiver where appellant failed to develop the issue in his brief) (citing Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29-30 (Pa. Super. 2006) ("arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived")). Even if not waived, we would conclude the record evidence supports the orphans' court's finding that termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve L.S.F.-K.'s needs and welfare.

  5. Commonwealth v. Steadly

    62 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 16, 2024)

    Further, when an appellant challenges a trial court's denial of a petition for writ of certiorari, "[w]e will not disturb the lower court's [decision] unless we find an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v.Noss, 162 A.3d 503, 507 (Pa. Super. 2017).

  6. Commonwealth v. Davis

    2020 Pa. Super. 270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020)   Cited 9 times
    In Davis, this Court observed that the failure to comply with Rule of Criminal Procedure 544, which sets forth the procedure for reinstituting charges following withdrawal or dismissal, may implicate double jeopardy principles and provide a basis for relief in the form of dismissal of refiled charges.

    Id . at 1171 ; see also id . at n.10. Oliver 's holding was followed by this Court in Commonwealth v. Noss , 162 A.3d 503 (Pa. Super. 2017). In Noss , the appellant was charged with various crimes, including aggravated assault, resisting arrest, simple assault and harassment.

  7. Commonwealth v. Chichkin

    2020 Pa. Super. 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806, which classified ARD as a prior offense in a DUI prosecution, violates due process

    When an appellant challenges a trial court's denial of a petition for writ of certiorari , "[w]e will not disturb the lower court's [decision] unless we find an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Noss , 162 A.3d 503, 507 (Pa. Super. 2017). Here, in all three of their claims, Appellants contend the statutes which the Municipal Court applied to increase their mandatory minimum sentence — 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3804 and 3806 — are unconstitutional, and, thus, their sentences are illegal. "A challenge to the legality of sentence is a question of law; our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Alston , 212 A.3d 526, 528 (Pa. Super. 2019).

  8. Shah v. Smeal

    No. J-S68017-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 6, 2020)

    See Brief of Appellant, at 6 ("Double [j]eopardy is a legal doctrine most commonly used in criminal cases; however it can be applied to any type of transaction or omission.") (citing Com. of Pa., Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Monarch Pallet Corp., 532 A.2d 1246, 1246 (Pa. Cmmw. 1987) (concerning a corporation found guilty of violating Air Pollution Control Act)). Contrary to the Smeals' assertion, double jeopardy is a doctrine that only applies to criminal law, not to the instant quiet title action. See Commonwealth v. Noss, 162 A.3d 503, 509 (Pa. 2017) ("The protections afforded by double jeopardy are generally recognized to fall within three categories—(1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal; (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.").

  9. Commonwealth v. Fleming

    No. J-S36032-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 10, 2018)

    Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (emphasis added). See also Commonwealth v. Noss, 162 A.3d 503, 509 (Pa.Super. 2017) (explaining arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived on appeal); Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 721, 69 A.3d 601 (2013) (reiterating failure to cite to legal authority to support argument results in waiver). Instantly, Appellant's pro se appellate brief falls short of the requisite standards.

  10. Commonwealth v. Washington

    No. J-S20015-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017)

    Hence, this claim is waived. Commonwealth v. Noss, 2017 PA Super 139 (filed May 9, 2017) at *9-10 (finding argument waived where appellant raised issue in statement of questions involved but failed to argue issue in argument section of brief).