Post Conviction Review Results in Affirmation of Sentence
Post 5036
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6rjqp3-challenge-to-guilty-plea-fails.html and at https://youtu.be/1atskrw8-og and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Lewis R. Brown, appealed from the December 20, 2023 order entered in the Delaware County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46, as meritless.
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Lewis R. Brown, No. 197 EDA 2024, No. J-S02022-25, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (March 24, 2025) reviewed his appeal after his request for post sentence motion to reconsider his sentence was denied.
FACTS
On June 21, 2022, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to Insurance Fraud, Theft by Deception, Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, and Conspiracy to Commit Insurance Fraud. In pleading guilty, Appellant admitted that he called his insurance company regarding a fraudulent claim from Delaware County and received payment for the fraudulent claim at his residence in Delaware County.
On August 15, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of 18 to 48 months of incarceration, a concurrent term of 6 years of probation, and restitution.
Plea counsel filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence, which the trial court granted. The court resentenced Appellant to a term of 15 to 36 months of incarceration, a concurrent term of 6 years of probation, and restitution.
On October 11, 2022, Brown obtained new counsel who filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which the trial court denied. Then, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who, on March 14, 2023, filed an amended petition.
In the amended petition, Appellant came up with an amazing assertion that Philadelphia County was the proper jurisdiction for this matter because the conduct underlying the charges against him “occurred via telephone communication in the City of Philadelphia” and no criminal behavior occurred in Delaware County so his plea of guilty should be rescinded.
THE PCRA COURT
On September 19, 2023, the PCRA court held a hearing on the petition, permitting Brown to speak. Brown stated that he believed Delaware County lacked jurisdiction because all criminal conduct occurred in Philadelphia County.
ISSUES
Appellant’s counsel raised the following issues:
1 Did the [PCRA] court abuse its discretion by denying [] Appellant’s [PCRA] petition after a hearing where he presented evidence that jurisdiction and/or venue was improper in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, where all the criminal conduct occurred in Philadelphia County?
2 Was plea counsel ineffective for failing to challenge venue and/or jurisdiction where all criminal conduct occurred in Philadelphia County?
To support the motion Counsel is required to submit a “no merit” brief (1) detailing the nature and extent of her review; (2) listing each issue the petitioner wishes to have raised on review; and (3) explaining why the petitioner’s issues are meritless. The Court then conducts its own independent review of the record to determine if the petition is meritless.
ANALYSIS
An appellate court must give great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations are binding on the appellate court.
A petitioner must establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived, and that the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial, during unitary review or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel.
Notwithstanding Appellant’s claim at the PCRA hearing that his criminal conduct took place only in Philadelphia County, the record reflects that Appellant received payment on the fraudulent insurance claim underlying this matter at his residence in Delaware County. Thus, venue was proper in Delaware County.
In fact, given that Delaware County had jurisdiction over this matter and venue was proper there, the trial court would likely have denied any motion to transfer venue and, thus, the outcome of this case would have likely been the same.
The PCRA court’s decision is supported by the evidence of record and free from legal error. Accordingly, Appellant’s claims merit no relief.
The order of the PCRA Court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has created a Post Conviction Review Court to allow convicted criminals to review the sentences handed down by the trial court that convicted him. In this case, after pleading guilty to the crime of insurance fraud, was upset by the sentence he received. He was able to get it modified once and tried to say he was tried in the wrong jurisdiction to remove the sentence. His arguments were specious and the appellate court did not fall for his scheme and he will stay in prison as ordered.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
