Commonwealth v. Ford
| Citation | 122 A.3d 414,2015 PA Super 183 |
| Decision Date | 02 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1235 MDA 2014,1235 MDA 2014 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Louis Purnell FORD, Appellee. |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
122 A.3d 414
2015 PA Super 183
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant
v.
Louis Purnell FORD, Appellee.
No. 1235 MDA 2014
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted March 3, 2015.
Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
Karen E. Kuebler, Assistant District Attorney, Lock Haven, for Commonwealth, appellant.
David I. Lindsay, Lock Haven, for appellee.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
Opinion
OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.:
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order removing the Clinton County District Attorney's Office from the prosecution of drug charges filed against Louis Purnell Ford (“Appellee”). We reverse and remand.
Appellee filed a motion for recusal of the Clinton County District Attorney's Office, averring as follows:
1. On January 30, 2014, [Appellee] was charged with numerous crimes incident to two (2) alleged deliveries of heroin.
2. The basis for both alleged crimes involves the use of a confidential informant who is the only individual claimed to have firsthand knowledge of the actual transactions alleged.
3. For this reason, the credibility and reliability of the confidential informant is crucial to the defense and/or prosecution of this case.
4. In this regard, it is possible that [Appellee] would take the stand in order to deny the allegations against him.
5. Should this occur, and because the credibility of [Appellee] would then be an issue, [Appellee's] prior criminal history would be both relevant and admissible.
6. In this regard, [Appellee] entered a guilty plea to theft, a second-degree misdemeanor, in connection with the matter docketed to Clinton County No. 223–09, Commonwealth v. Louis Ford, in which matter [Ford] was represented by Attorney Paul Ryan, Esquire, in his capacity as Clinton County Public Defender.
7. Attorney Ryan is now the Assistant District Attorney with the Clinton County District Attorney's Office
which is prosecuting the current case against [Appellee].
8. Furthermore, Attorney Ryan represented [Ford] in connection with a revocation matter incident to a prosecution where [Appellee] was also charged with possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. See Commonwealth v. Louis Ford, Clinton County No. 284–08.
9. Though [Appellee] was represented by attorney Patrick Johnson, Esquire, in connection with the matter docketed to Clinton County No. 284–08, [Appellee] did confer with and otherwise seek the advice of Attorney Ryan in connection with the revocation matter and the underlying case.
10. In light of the foregoing, [Appellee] believes, and therefore, alleges, that the Clinton County District Attorney cannot prosecute this matter in that [a] conflict of interest currently exists in this regard.
11. For this reason, [Appellee] requests that the Court cause the Clinton County District Attorney to refer this matter to the Pennsylvania Attorney General, or to some other appropriate entity, for further prosecution.
Motion for Recusal, 7/8/14, at 1–2. At a recusal hearing on July 10, 2014, defense counsel confirmed that then public defender, now Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) Paul Ryan, had been assigned to prosecute Appellee's drug case. N.T., 7/10/14, at 6. Defense counsel argued that Appellee had disclosed relevant confidential information to ADA Ryan that could be used against Appellee in the current prosecution. N.T., 7/10/14, at 3–10. The trial court granted Appellee's motion and removed the Clinton County District Attorney's Office from prosecution of Appellee's January 2014 drug charges. Id. at 12–13. This appeal followed. The Commonwealth and the trial court complied with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
The Commonwealth states a single question for our consideration:
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REMOVING THE CLINTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS THE PROSECUTING AGENCY IN THE CASE?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Brown
...such circumstances a defendant need not prove actual prejudice in order to require that the conflict be removed.” Commonwealth v. Ford, 122 A.3d 414, 418 (Pa.Super.2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Appellant argues that the OAG should have been disqualified because, in ......
-
United States v. Shah
...the District Court did not clearly err in finding that Miller was screened from Shah's prosecution. Cf. Commonwealth v. Ford, 122 A.3d 414, 418 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (remanding where trial court disqualified the entire district attorney's office because the record did not indicate whether c......
-
Vosburg v. NBC Seventh Realty Corp.
...excavat[ed]” by Appellant for such purpose down to approximately 50 feet below the ground. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/3/10, 122 A.3d 414at 3–4; see also Hendler, supra (categorizing a material as a mineral in the commercial sense, if it had “value” as a “building material ... and the like”......
-
United States v. Shah
....... . individual rather than vicarious disqualification is the. general rule." Commonwealth v. Miller, 422 A.2d. 525, 529 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980) (quotation marks and citation. omitted); see also 204 Pa. Code R. 1.11(d) cmt. ... not clearly err in finding that Miller was screened from. Shah's prosecution. Cf. Commonwealth v. Ford, . 122 A.3d 414, 418 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (remanding where. trial court disqualified the entire district attorney's. office ......