OUTCOME: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Reversed Lower Court. Successfully argued to change the way the court was sentencing DUI offenders
The court was asked to decide if a person could be convicted and sentenced as a repeat offender for a DUI if they were never convicted of a prior DUI arrest. The Defendant had two pending DUI arrests ...and pled to both on the same day. The court sentenced him as a first-offense and as a second offense, which raises the penalty significantly. Attorney Ogden appealed arging that the Defendant could not be sentenced as a recidivist offender because he was not convicted of the first DUI offense at the time of the second DUI offense. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed.
Real estate
DAVID LEASE v. HAMILTON TOWNSHIP
Oct 28, 2005
OUTCOME: Reversed the Township, Allowed the Development
Client sought to develop land in Hamilton Township, Adams County, Pennsylvania near Gettysburg. He submitted a preliminary subdivision plan known as Alwine Meadows to the Township. The Township Super...visors denied his plan and simply attached letters from its engineer to the denial order. While Client was consulting with Attorney Ogden on another matter, he asked him to review the denial order which way past the appeal period. The plan in question was for over 90 building lots.
Attorney Ogden alleged in a lawsuit that the denial order from the Township was not issued in accordance with the MPC (Municipalities Planning Code). The MPC governs how municipalities must communicate orders to citizens seeking to develop their land. In May 2003, Ogden advertised in the Adams County Legal Journal and the Gettysburg Times for a “deemed approval” which is a little know procedural maneuver to have the denial order over-turned.
Attorney Ogden further maintained that pursuant to Section 508(2) of the MPC, the Township was required to specify the defects of his application, to describe the requirements which were not met and to identify the provisions of the statute or ordinance upon which the Township relied to deny the plan.
The Township appealed the matter and filed objections to Ogden’s filing.
By order dated June 18, 2004, the trial court in Gettysburg granted summary judgment in favor of Lease.
The Township appealed again. The Commonwealth Court, No. 1465 C.D. 2004, Jiuliante, Senior Judge, held that denial of subdivision application did not meet statutory requirements of specificity, description of unmet requirements, and required cites.
General practice
Citizens For Responsible Development v. WalMart
Jan 01, 2005
OUTCOME: Successfully decided in favor of my client, Special Exception Denied.
Walmart filed a Zoning application to build a superstore next to a residential neighborhood. The residents hired John Ogden to review Walmart's application to be sure that it complied with all zoning ...laws. The plan did not comply with the zoning requirements and after several years and several court battles, the court rejected the application and ordered Walmart to comply with all zoning regulations.
Criminal defense
In Re Sarver,
Jul 15, 2003
OUTCOME: Record of the "Committment" was expunged. The guns and ammunition were returned to the Client.
Our client asked the court to have his mental health records expunged and to return his guns and ammunition after he was arrested and the police refused to return the items to him.
The client was ...involved in a so-called “standoff” at his house with the York City Police after his sister called the police to report that he might be suicidal. The police eventually took the client to York Hospital, where he was evaluated for mental health issues under 50 Pa.C.S. §7302 (section 302) of the Mental Health Procedures Act,
On that same day, a hearing officer was appointed by the court to conduct mental health commitment hearings. The officer found that there was no suicide threat made by client and that there was no evidence that he had engaged in any threatening or dangerous behavior toward the police.
The hearing officer found that the client was not suffering from a mental illness or that he presented a clear and present danger to himself or others and found that there was no need for continuing involuntary care and treatment. The section 303 petition was dismissed and petitioner was discharged. With regard to the guns and ammunition, Attorney Ogden argued that the Commonwealth must prove that the seized property is contraband. The court agreed and found that it was not contraband in the sense that it was not used in criminal conduct by the petitioner and was not per se illegal at the time of the incident. However, the City argued that, based on the client’s conduct, he prohibited from possessing a firearm under 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c)(4). 18 Pa.C.S. §6105, because he was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the Act of July 9, 1976 (P.L. 817, no. 143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act.
Thus, section 7302 of the MHPA allows a person's liberties to be restricted if that person meets the definition stated in section 7301(a) (section 301). Section 7301(a) of title 50 defines “Persons who may be subject to involuntary emergency examination and treatment.”Attorney Ogden argued that under the plain language of the law that the client was not “involuntarily committed “ unless an examining physician has issued a certification that inpatient care was necessary or that the person was committable.
Attorney Ogden argued that the hearing officer determined that the client did not suffer from a mental illness or present a clear and present danger to himself or others. Since the client was not “involuntarily committed” to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment, that his firearm as well as his ammunition and rifle scope should be returned. The court agreed.
Moreover, the court expunged his mental health records so that they no longer reflected that he was “committed” to a mental health institution, which would prevent him from possessing firearms.
Attorney Ogden is supporter of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution which grants Americans the right to keep and bear arms. He believes that all law abiding citizens without any mental health issues should maintain that right.
Real estate
Radecke v. York County Board of Assessment Appeals
Jan 25, 2002
OUTCOME: Commonwealth Court Reversed the lower court. The reassessment was improper.
Client purchased home in York County. Shortly thereafter, an agent from Assessment Office came to the home and subsquently reassessed the home over $20,000.00 higher that it had recently been reassess...ed as part of a countywide reassessment. The Assessment Office claimed that it was simply correcting errors in the record.
It was held that the Board of Assessment Appeals improperly approved increased assessment on taxpayer's property thereby subjecting taxpayer to impermissible spot reassessment, where assessment office increased assessment of property by calculating value of improvements that were omitted in countywide appraisal; while assessor may have changed assessed valuation on real property when improvements were made, and taxing authority was permitted to correct mathematical or clerical errors, majority of improvements were made prior to taxpayer's purchase, and essence of assessment was to bring property in line with fair market value of other properties in neighborhood, not to simply correct errors.
Radecke v. York Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 798 A.2d 265 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002)
Real estate
Radecke v. York Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 798 A.2d 265 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002)
Jan 01, 2002
OUTCOME: Favorable to the land owner
Taxpayer brought action challenging denial by Board of Assessment Appeals of his appeal of decision of appraiser to correct assessment of taxpayer's property by calculating value of improvements which ...were omitted in countywide appraisal, and adding them to assessed value. The Commonwealth Court held that Board improperly approved increased assessment on taxpayer's property thereby subjecting taxpayer to impermissible spot reassessment.
