Commonwealth v. Reed

Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of

Appellee REED, Appellant.

Michael

Superior Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 2014.

Filed Dec. Reed, appellant, pro

Miсhael se. Carr, Keaton Assistant District Attor- Commonwealth, ney, Pittsburgh, appel- for lee. GANTMAN, P.J.,

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PLATT, and J.* PLATT, OPINION BY J.: Reed, Michael Appellant, appeals from the dismissal of his fourth for re pursuant lief to the Post Conviction Relief (PCRA), §§ Act 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9541-9546. has filed a to withdraw Counsel representation pursuant from further Turner, (1988) A.2d 927 Commonwealth Finley, Pa.Super. (en banc). The chief

our review is whether the United States in Miller v. Ala Supreme Court’s decision * Judge assigned Superior Retired Senior Court.

—boma, degree 183 first and robbery, on June (2012) appliеs retroactively to The court sentenced him to life imprison- States Su Appellant.1 Neither United April ment on 1992. This Court af- preme nor our judgment sentence, firmed the and our applies retroactively. held that Miller Ac Supreme Court denied ap- allowance of cordingly, Appellant’s we conclude that peal. See id. petition untimely, PCRA with no statu Appellant filed the instant fourth tory exception proven. to the time-bar 10, 2012, petition July PCRA on and the substantially complied has Counsel with appointed counsel, PCRA court current to procedures request withdrawal. who filed petition.3 an amended Therefore, grant counsel’s petition to PCRA court filed notice of its intent to affirm

withdraw and Ap dismissal of (See Order, 9/05/12); dismiss. see also pellant’s petition. PCRA 907(1). Appellant Pa.R.Crim.P. filed a underlying dispute. facts are not in counseled response. The court dismissed Reed, See v. Pa.Super. Commonwealth petition 9, 2013, on December pat as (en 872, (1994) banc), ently frivolous.4 Appellant timely aрpeal denied, appeal Pa. 27, 2014, ed. On June counsel filed an (1995). 18, 1990, April On Appellant and a “Application for Leave to Withdraw as co-defendant, Williams, Jackie Lee both Counsel under Finley Turner and along old,2 years then seventeen hailed cab in a supporting Appellant brief.5 Pittsburgh. they When arrived at their not response filed a petition to the destination, driver, they informed the cab withdraw. Law, they Thomas did not have mon Counsel’s brief presents questions three ey pay argument, fare. After an for our review: and Mr. Law’s threat to go police, to the [cjourt Appellant fatally shot and robbed him. A 1. Whether the PCRA erred jury Appellant convicted of murder in of the denial [of] PCRA relief on the basis 1. In Miller the United readily apparent 4. For reasons not from the mandatory record, concluded that life-without-parole the PCRA essentially court also filed juveniles Eighth sentences for violate the identical orders of in this case on dismissal Amendment. See id. at 2464. 17, 2013, January December 2014. Appellant, 2. born on June acknowl- 5. Counsel submitted a brief in the nature of edges day that on the of the crime he was support petition an Anders brief in months, years, seventeen nine two weeks and (See Support Applica withdraw. "Brief in (See days Response five old. to Notice of tion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel under Dismiss, 9/17/12, Intention to at unnumbered 6/27/14); Finley,” Turner and see also Anders 1, ¶¶ 1-2). words, page Appellant In other California, v. 386 U.S. days was two months and twelve short of his (1967). Where counsel seeks to еighteenth birthday. denial,of appeal withdraw on from the relief, Tumer/Finley "no-merit letter” is the 3. We note that filed his appropriate filing. an "[b]ecause days within fifteen of the United States Su- provides greater Miller, protection Anders brief to a preme Court's in decision filed on defendant, Therefore, may accept an Anders June 2012. his com- Turner/Finley brief in lieu of a plied letter.” Com sixty day with the PCRA rule. See 42 9545(b)(2) Widgins, § monwealth v. ("Any petition A.3d 817 n. 2 Pa.C.S.A. invok- ing (1) exception provided (Pa.Super.2011) (citing paragraph an Fusselman, (Pa.Su days shall be filed within 60 of the date the 1111 n. 3 claim presented.”). per.2004)). could have been proceeding independent was untime- date an that the PCRA review of the rec- ord ly? competent counsel before a or appellate PCRA court court can au- the United States Su- Whether attorney’s thorize an withdrawal. The that the rule in preme Court held Miller necessary independent requires review Alabama, by applying said rule counsel to file a “no-merit” letter dеtail- Hobbs, companion case of Jackson ing the nature and extent of his review retroactively to cases where di- applies and list each the petitioner issue wishes rect prior review had concluded examined, why to have explaining those announcement of said rule in Miller v. court, issues are meritless. The PCRA Alabama? or an appellate court if the no-merit 8. Whether Commonwealth v. Batts it, Turner, letter is filed before see su- 115], recog- [620 pra, then must conduct indepen- its own nized a rule of constitutional law under dent agree evaluation of the record and Pennsylvania Constitution similar to petition with counsel that the is without that in Miller v. Alabama and does the merit.... rule in apply retroactively Batts to cases imposed [T]his Court additional re- [has] where direct prior review concluded quirements on counsel that closely track the announcement of said rule in Batts? the procedure withdrawing on direct ” (“Anders 3). Brief, at appeal.... required is [C]ounsel to con- Our standard and scope of review are temporaneously serve upon his [or her] well-settled. client his [or no-merit letter and her] We review an order dismissing peti- application to along withdraw with a tion light under the PCRA in the most statement that if granted the court coun- favorable to the prevailing party at the request, sel’s withdrawal the client may PCRA level. This review is limited to proceed pro privately se or with a re- the findings of the PCRA court and the attorney.... tained evidence of record. We -willnot disturb Rykard, ruling a PCRA court’s if it supported denied, 1183-84 (Pa.Super.2012), appeal legal evidence of record and is free of (2013) (some may error. This Court affirm a PCRA omitted). citations and footnote any grounds court’s decision on if the pursuant time limitations to ... [T]he record supports grant great it. We def- jurisdictional. are [Jurisdic- erence to the factual findings of the mandatory tional limitations are time] PCRA court and will not disturb those thus, and interpreted literally; a court findings they support unless have nо authority has no filing periods to extend the record. we afford no such except as the statute permits. If the legal deference to its conclusions. Fur- petition is determined to untimely, petitioner ques- raises ther/where and exception pled no has been law, tions of our standard of review is de proven, must be dismissed scope novo and our of review is plenary. ' without a hearing Pennsylvania because jurisdiction

courts are without to consid- er the merits petition. Turner/Finley deсisions ‍‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​​‍provide Jackson, the manner for postconviction Commonwealth v.

counsel denied, to withdraw from representa (Pa.Super.2011), 519 appeal tion. holdings (citations, of those cases man- Pa. quo- omit- punctuation Consequently, tation and other the only marks substantive ted). issue for our review is Appellant whether can claim statutory an Here, review of the confirms our record grounds PCRA time-bar on the that Mil complied has substantially that counsel (or ler, Batts, supra, supra) ap can be to with- procedural requirements with the retroactively plied to him.7 “Anders {See Accordingly, we will proceed draw.6 3). Brief, at questions our review of the independent presented correctly to determine if counsel Appellant cannot do so. The United that the issues had no concluded raised Supreme has not ruled merit. Furthermore, Miller is retroactive. in Commonwealth v. Cun allow Our Court denied (2013), ningham, A.3d 1 April ance appeal of case on — denied, cert. Reed, supra, 1995. See 658 A.2d 794. L.Ed.2d decided Thus, judgment of sentence Appellant’s Miller is not: Monday, July became final on Here, applying principles ap- settled of after our de ninety days review, pellate nothing in ar- Appellant’s appeal time for nied the and the guments persuades pro- us that Miller’s to file a writ of petition for scription imposition mandatory certiorari with the United States life-without-parole of- upon sentences expired. Court See 42 Pa.C.S.A. age fenders under the of the eighteеn at 9545(b)(3); Supreme § United States time their crimes were must committed Appellant 13. Accordingly, Court Rule extended those whose judgments year petition had one to file a of were sentence final as of the of time relief, 17, July until 42 or 1996. See Miller’s announcement. 9545(b)(1). Therefore, Appel § C.S.A. Id. at 11. petition facially untimely. lant’s instant retroactivity addressed petition untimely,

When a is otherwise principles under enunciated by the Unites to obtain PCRA relief under the Lane, Teague States Court in v. newly recognizеd right, for a constitutional 1060, 288, 109 489 U.S. S.Ct. 103 L.Ed.2d petitioner a has the plead burden to (1989), pertinent 334 part, as follows: prove right “the a that asserted is consti- Lane, right by that the recognized Briefly, Teague (plu- tutional was v. [supra] Supreme Court of the or the rality), general United States delineated a rule non- of of Pennsylvania retroactivity procedural, after the for new consti- Court, provided in period by time this section and tutional rules announced by LAFAVE, apply has held that been court WAYNE R. JEROLD H. IS- retroactivеly.” RAEL, 42 Pa.C.S.A. NANCY J. S. KING & ORIN 9545(b)(l)(iii) added). (3d 2.11(e) KERR, § (emphasis § 1 CRIM. PROC. Specifically, Appellant 6. counsel a to with- filed of her brief. She informed of his 27, se, contempo- counsel, draw on June private Counsel right proceed pro to retain raneously supporting filed her brief. She at- brief, supplemental file a or his discontinue copy Appellant tached of the a letter sent to appeal. response. Appellant has not filed a notifying him of her he was conclusion that to relief not entitled under the PCRA.Cоunsel presents question only general 7. The a first " enclosed her notice letter Brief, 3). (See at claim of error. "Anders copy copy of her to withdraw and

ed.2012) (relating Teague disregards special has been claim status of a establishing as a “law at the directly described case reviewed the United subject to two narrow principle), time” ignoring as well as exceptions. This construct was solidi specific analysis application the case majority Penry decision in fied Teague principles requires. Fur- 302, 329-30, Lynaugh, 492 U.S. thermore, Cunningham expressly rejected (1989). 2934, S.Ct. 106 L.Ed.2d 256 As argument: “Initially, reject Appel- here, relevant exceptions extend to position lant’s that the Miller re- Court’s “rules a certain prohibiting category of appellate versal of the state court decision punishment for a class of defendants the denial affirming postconviction relief offense,” because their status or Pen in the compels Jackson case the conclusion 330, ry, U.S. at 109 S.Ct. 2934 and Cunningham, that Miller is retroactive.” procedure “watershed rules of criminal supra at 9. The second does not implicating ‍‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​​‍the fundamental fairness and merit relief. accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” third, final posits that Banks, 5,

Horn v. 536 U.S. 271 n. holding Court’s in Com- 122 S.Ct. 153 L.Ed.2d .... Batts, monwealth v. Summerlin, recently, More Schriro (2013), a direct appeal, should 542 U.S. apply analogously to appeals collateral as High ap (See 3). Brief, well. “Anders” at pears This merged to have the first argument has been exceptiоn with the made before. See principle that new 18, (Baer, J., generally Cunningham, supra substantive rules at apply retro dis- actively. senting). See id. at 351-52 & n. as dissent itself Drinan, generally indicates, S.Ct. 2519. See proposal Gra to extend the Ground, ham on the 87 WASH. L.REV. holding generally in Miller to collateral at (explaining that “the Court has appeals yet majority to command a terminology shifted its somewhat and contrary, of our To the Court. has described new rules as ‘substantive’ jurisprudence our traditionally recog- has they when the range of conduct ] ‘alterf nized a properly distinction between or the persons class of the law preserved presented raised and issues in punishes,’ rather describing than them appeal, cases on direct and cases on col- as falling within the first of the non- two lateral review where a determination of retroactivity exceptions).” guilt already been made. In collat- (footnotes Cunningham, swpra at 4-5 and' appeals, “strong eral interest in final- omittеd; punctuation some emphasis in ity in orderly justice inherent an criminal original).' system” traditionally affords additional weight to the prospective application of

Here, question because the first pres- newly announced constitutional principles, only generalized error, ents claim of as within Teague analysis. the context of noted, previously review it in conjunc- we Cunningham, supra at 9. tion with the two remaining questions. second raises the issue of Moreover, retroactivity these аr

whether the Miller application Court’s of guments ignore general rule on retro holding its to the companion case of Jack- application adopted Teague: son v. active in compels Hobbs “Un applica- retroactive (See Brief, tion Miller they of here. “Anders less fall within an to the 3); Miller, rule, at supra see also at 2475. This general new constitutional rules of applicable will not be “This procedure by criminal Court is bound exist have ing precedent those cases which become final before under the doctrine of stare Teague, the new rules are announced.” decisis and continues to controlling follow 310, supra (adopting at 109 S.Ct. 1060 precedent long as as the decision has not analysis Mackey Justice Harlan’s in v. by been overturned our Supreme Court.” States, 692, 667, Slocum, 272, United U.S. S.Ct. Commonwealth v. (1971) (Harlan J„ 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (Pa.Super.2014) 278 n. 9 (citing Dixon v. part GEICO, (Pa.Sup concurring dissenting part)). 925-26 arguments None of the advanced on behalf er.2010)).9 Appellant’s retroactivity claim to for Here, of whether Miller

Miller merit relief under current control- represents a watershed rule' has been ad- Furthermore, ling authority. indepen- on dressed Court. See Cun- review, dent we conclude there are no ningham, ‍‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​​‍at supra Noting arguments which merit would PCRA relief United States Court has limited Appellant. exception, the sec- watershed/bedrock Teague exception, ond ‘sweeping1 “to recognize

We that different courts changes on the order of Gideon v. Wain- have substantially differing reached con wright, 372 U.S. 83 S.Ct. clusions on the application retroactive (1963);” L.Ed.2d Cunningham Miller.8 this does not alter our Court concluded that “modifications of a analysis of the state of the law in the nature, less broadscale they may while Pennsylvania. Commonwealth of very simply important, require do not At the outset we observe that it is application, retroactive under sec- well-settled that Court is not bound exception.” ond Cunningham, courts, by the decisions of federal other added). supra (еmphasis at 10 than the United States or the decisions of other states’ courts. Court cited Whorton Fellin, See Track v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 127 S.Ct. (Pa.Super.200S), appeal denied sub nom. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 deci- (holding Inc., Drug, Trach v. Thrift Washington, sion in 541 U.S. Crawford (2004). recognize “We 158 L.Ed.2d 177 cases; that we are not bound these already is not retroactive to cases final on however, may guidance we use them for review, Teag- direct under rules set out in degree find them useful and ).ue The Whorton Court observed that incompatible Pennsylvania not only ... [is] “Gidеon case that we have Id. law.” qualifying excep- identified as under this Whorton, Exchange, Eckman v. Erie Ins. supra at tion[.]” 1203, 1207 added). (Pa.Super.2011). (emphasis 1173 Mantich, 320, 341, reasons, e.g., 8. See State v. 287 Neb. 9. For similar we decline to fault counsel, withdraw, (Neb.2014), deny permission or her 842 N.W.2d 730-31 cert. de — speculation nied, Mantich, on that the conclusion or the rea Nebraska soning Cunningham our in Court (2014) (apply S.Ct. 190 L.Ed.2d may change attorney in the future. "An can law); ing retroactively Miller under Nebraska failing not be deemed ineffective for to antici Cain, (5th Craig v. WL *2 Cir. change pate development or in the law.” 2013) (concluding Miller not retroactive un —Hill, Pa. -, Commonwealth v. Teague). der (2014) (citation omitted). Applying principles, these the Whorton I Specifically, believe the Majority’s concluded: Court statement that “the of whether represents Miller rule watershed rule also did not “alter Crawford been addressed our Supreme Court” understanding proce- bedrock inaccurately reflects the Court’s dural elements essential to the fairness holding in Cunningham. Majority Opin- ... proceeding.” require- of a [T]his ion at 143. I Cunningham note that the simply by ment cannot met showing Court acknowledged that rule procedural that a new is based on a right. frequently Lane[1] “bedrock” We have Teague v. general delineated a Teague retroactivity held that the bar to rule of non-retroactivity for proce new applies to new rules that are based on dural, constitutional rules announced rights. “bedrock” constitutional Simi- ... subject to two narrow larly, procedural that a new rule is “fun- ... exceptions. exceptions [T]he extend damental” some abstract sense is not prohibiting “rules a certain category enough. punishment for a class of defendants offense,” because of their status or (some 420-21, Id. at 127 S.Ct. 1173 cita- “watershed rules of criminal procedure tions, punctuation and quotation internal implicating the fundamental fairness and omitted). Here, marks similarly, there is accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” no rеasonable doubt about our Court’s conclusion in Cunningham on the (internal Cunningham, 81 A.3d at 4 cita- non-retroactivity of Miller. omitted). tions The Cunningham Court analyzed then whether Miller was retroac- reasoning

Our differs from that of tive pursuant to the first exception. court. may affirm Ultimately, the Court concluded that “the any PCRA court’s order on basis. See Teague exception first apply does not v. Doty, Commonwealth rule,” because, the Miller “by its own (Pa.Super.2012). terms, holding the Miller ‘does not cate- Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw gorically bar a penalty for a class of of- granted. (in- fenders.’ Cunningham, 81 A.3d at 10 omitted). ternal citations Judge President GANTMAN joins the Significantly, Cunningham Court Opinion. then went on to state: “As to the second Judge President Emeritus Bender files Teague exception, as we previously have a Concurring Opinion. noted, Appellant has not developed his ar- guments so, doing such ‍‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​​‍terms.” Id. In CONCURRING OPINION BY BENDER, Cunningham acknowledged P.J.E.: represent- of whether Miller result, While I concur in the Majority’s I ed a so-called “watershed rule of criminal disagrеe Majority’s with the conclusion procedure” was not before them. Cunningham, stands for the ques- then proposition blanket that Miller v. Ala tioned Supreme whether the United —bama, 132 S.Ct. presents Court would find that Miller a is not retroactive. watershed rule: (1989) 1. 489 U.S. 109 S.Ct. (plurality). 103 L.Ed.2d that, say given high impor We will the believe that the of whether Miller by tance attached the majority Miller to represents procedural watershed rule re- discerned, the new rule which it it seems quiring application retroactive yet has not possible that some Justices of the Unit been addressed this Commonwealth. may ed States Court find the Even though the Pennsylvania Supreme rule to be of the variety.... watershed Court has not explicitly pos- foreclosed the doubt, however, We majority that a sibility that Miller is retroactive under the the Justices would excep broaden the second exception, Appellant none- beyond tion the ... exceedingly narrow theless has prove failed to an exception to parameters reflected the line of deci the PCRA time bar. Recently, our Court by sions referenced the Commonwealth. addressed the retroactively-applied consti- According the the right tutional exception to the PCRA time “sweeping” limited to changes on the bar, noting: order Wainwright;l2] of Gideon v. modi (iii) (b)(1) Subsection of Section 9545 [ ] nature, fications of a less broadscale First, has two requirements. provides it they may while very important, sim that the right asserted is constitutional ply do not require applica retroactive right recognized that was by the Su- tion, under the Teague exception. second preme Court of the United States or Id. at 10. [the Court of Pennsylvania] af- Majority interprets this discussion ter provided the time in this section. as a holding, stating that “there is no Second, provides it right that the “has reasonable doubt about our by been held” “that apply court” to ret- Court’s conclusion in Cunningham on the Thus, roactively. a petitioner must non-retroactivity Majority of Miller.” prove that there is a “new” constitution- Opinion at 144. I believe the right al and that right the “has been Cunningham Court’s regarding discussion held” that court to apply retroactive- the Teague exception second is dicta. ly. The language “has been held” inis First, Cunningham the Court acknowl- past the tense. These mean words that edged that the issue of whether Miller occurred, i.e., already action has represents a “watershed rule” had not “that court” has already held the new addition, been appellant. raised In constitutional right to be retroactive to the Court noted that it was speculating as cases on By employ- collateral review. to how the United States Court ing the past tense in writing provi- issue, might rule on the and it did not sion, legislature clearly intended purport to undertake analysis. its own Fi- right already was recognized at nally, explicitly ex- the time the petition was filed. pressed uncertainty regard its to how Seskey, the United States Supreme might (Pa.Super.2014) 242-243 (quoting Com- theoretically decide the issue. The Court Copenhefer, monwealth v. noted that it possible “seems that some (Pa.2007)). A.2d 649-650 may Justices ... find the rule to be of the variety,” watershed but “doubt[ed] a While I believe of whether majority of the Justices would” reach that right recognized constitutional in Mil- Thus, conclusion. Cunningham at 10. I represents ler a “watershed rule” is unde- 2. 372 charged U.S. 9 L.Ed.2d 799 appoint- with felonies are entitled to counsel). (holding indigent that all defendants ed Hamilton, Inc., Pennsylvania, George Georgia- cided V. yet affirmatively past Corporation, not held “in the Pumps, Pacific Gould Inc., Green, Inc., retroactive. On Company, tense” that Miller is these Tweed & Hajoca grounds, Plumbing I am constrained to conclude that Supply Company, prove Harnischfeger an exception Corp., has failed to Hedman Re- (f/k/a bar, time and this PCRA Court is sources Limited Hedman Mines jurisdiction Ltd.), Co., without to consider the Honeywell merits Hobart Brothers facially untimely International, Inc., of his petition. Ingersoll PCRA Rand Co., Accordingly, Majority’s Joy Inc., I concur with the Global Lincoln Electric disposition grant Co., Co., counsel’s Lukens Steel Mallinckrodt (f/k/a affirm withdraw and Group, order of the trial Inc. International Min- dismissing Appellant’s peti- court Corp.), erals & Chemicals Melrath Gasket, Inc., tion. Safety Appliance Mine

(MSA), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Corporation, Nosrock Ow- (a/k/a ens-Illinois, Inc., Pep Boys Manny, Jack), Moe and Union Carbide Corp., Universal Refractories Division Corporation. of Thiem NELSON, Darlene Appeal Executrix of the of Crane Co. Estate of James Nelson Nelson, Darlene Executrix of the Estate of James Nelson SUPPLY,

AIRCO WELDERS Allied (a/k/a Signal Corp.), Allied American Standard, (a/ Chesterton, Inc., A.W. Supply, Signal Ba Airco Welders Allied (f/ sic, Inc., Bayer CropScience, Inc., Corp.), Standard, Allied American k/a USA, Inc.), CropScience, Chesterton, Inc., Aventis Basic, Inc., A.W. k/a (f/k/a Products, Inc., Poulenc, Bayer Inc., Achem CropScience, Rhone Aventis Benjamin Compa CropScience, USA, Inc.), AG Co. and Foster Achem Prod (a/k/a ny, Co., Koopers ucts, Inc., Poulenc, Beazer East Rhone AG and Co. Kooper), Bird, Inc., Benjamin Inc. and Company, BOC Foster Beazer (a/k/a Group, Borg-Warner Corp., Co., Koopers Brand In East Inc. and (f/k/a sulations, Inc., Corporation Kooper), Bird, Inc., CBS Group, BOC Inc., Viacom, Westinghouse Borg-Warner and Corp., Elec Brand Insula Corporation), (f/k/a Corpo tions, Inc., tric Corporation Certainteed CBS Vi (a/k/a ration, Chrysler Corp. AMC, acom, Westinghouse Inc. and Electric Northwest Corporation), Auto Rental Co. and Corpora Certainteed Chrysler (a/k/a Co.), tion, Chrysler AMC, Service Contract Corp. Crane Co., Demming Division, Crane Pack Northwest Auto Rental Co. and ing, Welding Cutting Chrysler ESAB Co.), and Service Contract Crane Equipment, Co., Co., Division, EJ Lavino Demming & Eutectic Pack Crane Corp., Engineering, ing, Ferro Welding Cutting Ford ‍‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​​‍Motor ESAB Co., Foseco, Inc., Equipment, Co., Foster Wheeler Cor EJ Lavino & Eutectic poration, Garlock, Inc., Corp., Engineering, General Elec Ferro Ford Motor Company, Co., Foseco, tric Corp., Inc., General Motors Foster Wheeler Cor-

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Reed

Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Dec 19, 2014

Citation: 107 A.3d 137

Docket Number: 1956 WDA 2013

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.