# Commonwealth v. Johnson > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 6, 1989 · 383 Pa. Super. 356 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707663 ## Case - **Full name:** In the Interest of Anthony McFALL. Appeal of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania. (Nine Cases) in the Interest of Robert WISE. in the Interest of Anthony WHETSTONE. in the Interest of Perry WALLACE. in the Interest of Christopher VINCENT. in the Interest of Gilbert ORSINI. in the Interest of Jamal CONNOR. in the Interest of James MILES. in the Interest of Terry FOSTER. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Leon JOHNSON; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Ronnie PIERCE; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert JACOBS; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert LEWIS, Jr.; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Ali SCOTT; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. David GILES; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Lawrence GOUCH; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Kenneth GRAHAM; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Michael JENKINS; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Michael HATTON; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Cedric BOHANNON; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Edward BROWN; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Patrick GARRETT; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Timothy REEVES; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. James M. ROSSER; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Jose TORRES; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Marcus WARD; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Aaron WHITE; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. James WALKER; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Ricardo SEARS; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Dennis MASON; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Ralph RIVERA; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. George H. MALENEY; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Brian BRAXTON - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** April 6, 1989 - **Citations:** 383 Pa. Super. 356; 556 A.2d 1370; 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 846 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Kelly - **Judges:** Brosky, Kelly, Hoffman - **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707663 ## Opinion text KELLY, Judge, dissenting: I dissent. The majority opinion is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with prior opinions of this Court. See Commonwealth v. Weeks, 381 Pa.Super. 411 , 554 A.2d 68 (1989); Commonwealth v. Hewett, 380 Pa.Super. 334 , 551 A.2d 1080 (1988); see also Reilly v. SEPTA, 507 Pa. 204 , 489 A.2d 1291 (1985); Commonwealth v. Vance, 376 Pa.Super. 493 , 546 A.2d 682 (1988). The juvenile defendants in these consolidated cases have made no attempt to establish a nexus between Judge Cunningham’s alleged and proven misconduct and the dispositions of various motions which they challenge. Review of the record in each case reveals no such nexus, no errors of law, and no apparent abuse of discretion with respect to these cases. I find no basis to vacate orders entered by Judge Cunningham prior to her removal from the bench without establishing a clear nexus between her alleged and proven misconduct and the challenged orders. See Commonwealth v. Hewett, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Weeks, supra (following Hewett). I note that the eases relied upon by the majority to reach a contrary conclusion fall into two g'eneral categories: cases involving pre-disposition motions for recusal due to an appearance of impropriety; and, eases involving pas-i-disposition motions for new proceedings when a clear nexus between judicial misconduct and the challenged disposition had been established. Because I find neither category applicable to the cases presented here, I find the cases cited inapposite, and the conclusion reached by the majority unsupported. Based upon the foregoing, I dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707663. Public record. Not legal advice.