Com. v. Lemo, E.


J-A02028-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ESAD LEMO : : Appellant : No. 922 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 20, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013042-2006 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 11, 2020 Appellant, Esad Lemo, appeals from the March 20, 2009 judgment of sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after Appellant was convicted, in a non-jury trial, of first-degree murder.1 We affirm.2 A prior panel of this Court summarized the factual and procedural history as follows: ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a). 2 On March 30, 2020, Appellant filed a letter drawing this Court’s attention to our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Diaz, 2020 WL 1479846 (Pa. March 26, 2020) (slip opinion). The Commonwealth filed a response to Appellant’s letter that same day. The Prothonotary for this Court identified Appellant’s letter as a motion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2501(b). Although we understand this letter to be required notification, pursuant to Rule 2501(b), of a change in authoritative law relied upon in a party’s brief, to the extent this letter was deemed to be a motion, it should be granted as we have considered the material identified therein. J-A02028-20 [Appellant] engaged in a pattern of physical and sexual abuse of his wife during their marriage. After she left him and filed for divorce, [Appellant] drove to her residence, observed her on the street, made a U-turn, and then deliberately drove his car into his wife and propelled her against a wall, instantly killing her. Commonwealth v. Lemo, [2011 WL 7118829 (Pa. Super. October 6, 2011) (unpublished memorandum).] After taking him to a local hospital for medical evaluation, police questioned [Appellant]. [Appellant] is a Bosnian immigrant who apparently neither reads nor writes the English language and whose spoken English is less than rudimentary; accordingly, police arranged for a local Serbo-Croatian[3] immigrant to translate the reading of [Appellant’s] Miranda[4] rights and the subsequent interrogation. After waiving his rights, [Appellant] told police that he had blacked out at the time of the incident. When confronted with another prior statement that the car's brakes had failed, [Appellant] admitted to striking his wife with the car. Before his preliminary hearing, [Appellant] filed a motion seeking involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. On August 31, 2006, [the trial court] denied the petition. The next day, the magisterial district court held [Appellant’s] preliminary hearing and bound [Appellant’s] case over on the single charge of criminal homicide. On December 7, 2006, [Appellant] filed a second petition for involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. On December 14, 2006, the trial court granted this petition, committing [Appellant] to the care of Mayview State Hospital for 90 days. Throughout pre-trial discovery and motions practice, a number of physicians and psychologists evaluated [Appellant], ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals