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in the City of Philadelphia” and no criminal behavior occurred in Delaware County so his plea of guilty should be rescinded.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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
