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in the City of Philadelphia” and no criminal behavior occurred in Delaware County so his plea of guilty should be rescinded.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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
