Com. v. Mitchell, E., Jr. (concurring memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S42021-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. EDWARD LEE MITCHELL, JR. Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 441 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001894-2015, CP-22-CR-0003264-2015, CP-22-CR-0003608-2015, CP-22-CR-0003609-2015, CP-22-CR-0003655-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., MCLAUGHLIN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2018 I agree with the Majority that Appellant has waived his claim to the confiscated funds by agreeing to have the funds applied to his restitution, fines, and costs, and thus the trial court’s order should be affirmed. I write separately because I disagree with the Majority’s finding of untimeliness. Appellant raised the issue of having the confiscated funds applied to his restitution, costs, and fines, unsuccessfully, at least four times prior to the underlying Rule 588 motion for return of property. See N.T., 7/19/2016, at 19; Pro Se Petition for Disbursement of Confiscated Money, 11/14/2016; Pro Se Petition for Entry of Final Order, 1/9/2017; Amended *Retired Senior Judge appointed to the Superior Court. J-S42021-18 PCRA Petition, 7/6/2017. Accordingly, I would find that Appellant raised the issue in a timely manner. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.