Legal Case

Com. v. Montalvo-Rivera, C.

Com.

Court

Unknown Court

Decided

July 9, 2025

Importance

35%

Standard

Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Constitutional Law

Case Summary

J-A11032-25 2025 PA SUPER 139 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CARLOS MONTALVO-RIVERA : : Appellant : No. 977 MDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 21, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000756-2020 BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: JULY 9, 2025 Appellant, Carlos Montalvo-Rivera, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered June 21, 2023, by the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas following trial by jury and subsequent conviction. After careful review, we affirm. On February 24, 2020, by filing of a Criminal Information Appellant was charged with: one count Criminal Homicide1; one count Arson with danger of death or bodily injury2; three counts of Criminal Attempt – Criminal Homicide3; and one count of Causing a Catastrophe4. The matter proceeded to trial by jury on March 20, 2023. Appellant was convicted on April 6, 2023, of Murder ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(A) 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(A) 3 18 Pa.C.S.A. §901, §2501 4 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3302(A) J-A11032-25 in the First Degree, found guilty on all remaining counts, and subsequently was sentenced to life in prison for First Degree Murder, plus twenty to forty years’ incarceration. He timely filed his notice of appeal on July 7, 2023. At trial, the jury found that the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that in the early morning hours of December 6, 2010, Appellant set fire to his residence, one of a row of attached homes located at 14 North Plum Street, Lancaster Pennsylvania, with his wife and three children inside. This fire resulted in serious bodily injury to his two daughters, and the death of his wife Olga Sanchez. N.T. at 261. The Commonwealth proceeded on the theory that these events were the culmination of an escalating pattern of abusive and threatening behavior from Appellant directed towards his wife, Ms. Sanchez, and in support thereof, adduced testimony from several witnesses establishing that Appellant had previously threatened to kill Ms. Sanchez. The victim’s older brother, Julian Sanchez, testified that on one occasion he heard Appellant tell the victim “he was going to kill her like a bitch.” N.T. at 1037. The victim’s sister, Dolores Ojeda, testified that on a separate occasion, the Appellant confirmed to her that he had threatened to kill the victim “like a dog.” N.T. at 1291-1292. A third witness, the victim’s close personal friend, Rosaura Reyes, confirmed that she had been confronted by Appellant about yet another past death threat he made towards the victim, wherein Appellant pointed a gun at her. N.T. at 1263. Ms. Reyes confirmed that the victim had told her about this incident -2- J-A11032-25 prior to her death; in response to this, Appellant denied that the incident had ever occurred, and said “unfortunately Olga [is] dead and she was the only one who could say otherwise.” Id. Ms. Reyes also confirmed that the victim had been having an affair with another man. N.T. 1258. After the fire, the victim’s body was found on her back, on the floor in her bedroom near where the fire had originated. The forensic medical examiner, Dr. Wayne Ross, observed the body at the scene and subsequently performed the autopsy. He noted that Ms. Sanchez’ tongue was protruding from her mouth and dented with teeth marks, and he found that she had suffered a brain herniation, which, taken together, indicated pre-mortem strangulation resulting in a loss of consciousness. N.T. 1415-1419. Further, the doctor found isopropyl alcohol, an accelerant, in the victim’s lungs, indicating that the accelerant was poured down her throat. Id. The doctor also found soot in the victim’s airway. Id. at 1417-1418. Blood testing revealed that the victim’s carbon monoxide level was elevated, but still relatively low at 9.5%, which indicated to the doctor that the victim was alive when she fire was set, as she had inhaled some smoke, but died almost immediately thereafter. Id. At the scene, Dr. Ross completed a “sex kit;” in so doing he took swabs of the victim’s oral, vaginal, and rectal regions. Id. at 1413. Subsequent testing of those samples showed the presence of sperm in the vaginal swabs, and semen, but no sperm, in th

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

July 9, 2025

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Standard
Score35%
Citations
0
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction
Defendant Rights

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJul 9, 2025
UpdatedAug 15, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

Summary of the key points and legal principles

Legal Topics

Areas of law covered in this case

Jurisdiction
Defendant Rights

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJuly 9, 2025
Date DecidedJuly 9, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.3
Judicial Panel
Stevens
Opinion Author
Stevens

Similar Cases

5

Cases with similar legal principles and precedents

James Jones v. Harry

80% match
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Aug 2025

BLD-186 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-1387 ___________ JAMES JONES, Appellant v. DR. HARRY, COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY, PA DOC; J. TERRA, SUPERINTENDENT; KERI MOORE, CHIEF GRIEVANCE OFFICER; C.E.R.T., CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-05692) District Judge: Honorable Mia R. Perez ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 24, 2025 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 7, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Inmate James Jones appeals pro se the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. We will summarily affirm. I. On the morning of August 14, 2024, at the State Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Pennsylvania, Correctional Emergency Response Team (“CERT”) officers visited Jones in his housing cell, subjected him to a strip search, and ordered him to carry his mattress to the lower level for screening. While he transported his mattress, the officers searched his living quarters. Shortly after returning to his cell, Jones discovered that the CERT officers had removed two cases of his legal documents and discarded them in the housing unit’s trash bin, which he could see from his cell door. Jones called out to officers on the unit floor and asked them to retrieve his legal materials from the garbage, but they refused. Jones requested assistance from his Unit Manager, numerous corrections officers, and members of the cleaning crew—all refused to retrieve his documents from the bin. Jones initiated this action against Department of Corrections’ Commissioner Dr. Harry, Superintendent Terra, CERT officers, Chief Grievance Officer Kerri Moore, and anyone else that may have been involved, referring to them as “Defendants et al.” Jones sued the defendants in their official and individual capacities, alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and brought a claim of negligence against Terra. The District Court screened Jones’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed it with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part, and granted Jones leave 2 to amend his complaint within thirty days. In its subsequent order denying Jones’ motion for reconsideration, the District Court reiterated that he could file an amended complaint within thirty days or proceed with his original filing, but that if Jones opted to stand on his original complaint, it would “issue a final order dismissing the case.” Jones filed a notice of intent to stand on his original complaint. The District Court therefore dismissed all of Jones’ federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state law claim without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jones appealed.1 II. We agree with the District Court’s analysis. As an initial matter, the District Court properly concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred Jones’ official capacity claims against all defendants, who are all state officials, for monetary damages. See Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 309–10 (3d Cir. 2020). The District Court’s dismissal of Jones’ individual capacity claims against Moore was also proper, as a prisoner does not have a free-standing right to an effective grievance process, and an officer’s 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order dismissing Jones’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). Dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B) are governed by the same standard applicable to moti

Very Similar Similarity

The People of the State of Colorado v. Benjamin Eugene Davenport.

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-08"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:peopleofthestateofcoloradovdavenportno24sc625june3,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Benjamin Eugene Davenport</span>. <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 24SC625</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 3, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="163" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="163" data-sentence-id="180" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_180" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 22CA2273</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="221" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="221" data-sentence-id="237" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

Commonwealth v. Wright, B.

80% match
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 45 WAL 2024 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Unpublished v. : Memorandum and Order of the : Superior Court at No. 478 WDA : 2023 entered on January 5, 2024, BRIAN K. WRIGHT, : affirming the Judgment of Sentence : of the Armstrong County Court of Petitioner : Common Pleas at No. CP-03-CR- : 0000200-2022 entered on March 23, 2023 ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2025, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Shifflett, __ A.3d __, 2025 WL 1535292 (Pa. 2025).

Very Similar Similarity

Commonwealth v. Long, S.

80% match
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 347 MAL 2024 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Unpublished v. : Memorandum and Order of the : Superior Court at No. 1463 MDA : 2023 entered on July 2, 2024, SAMANTHA MARIE LONG, : affirming the Judgment of Sentence : of the Cumberland County Court of Petitioner : Common Pleas at No. CP-21-CR- : 0000186-2023 entered on September 12, 2023 ORDER PER CURIAM DECIDED: June 25, 2025 AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2025, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Shifflett, __ A.3d __, 2025 WL 1535292 (Pa. filed May 30, 2025).

Very Similar Similarity

Douglas James Dyer v. The People of the State of Colorado

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:dyervpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc196june17,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Douglas James Dyer</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC196</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_174"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA1081</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="215" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="215" data-sentence-id="231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity