In December 2022, Attorney Noel obtained PCRA relief in the form of a new trial on behalf of her client, who had been convicted of third-degree murder. Dissatisfied with that result, the Commonwealth exercised its right to appeal the PCRA court’s order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Following robust briefing by Attorney Noel, the Superior Court sided with Attorney Noel’s client, and affirmed the PCRA court’s order awarding him a new trial.

Attorney Noel was retained to litigate a claim under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act involving newly discovered evidence of judicial bias. Attorney Noel’s client had been sentenced to a draconian 60 to 150 years of incarceration for non-violent drug sales. Attorney Noel’s task was to bring her client home. To learn how she accomplished that task, read Attorney Noel’s article, published in For the Defense, the quarterly publication for Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of Aggravated Assault and Carrying a Firearm Without a License. Attorney Noel was retained to represent the defendant on appeal. Within 10 days of sentencing, Attorney Noel filed a post-sentence motion that would become the roadmap for the appeal to follow. In those motions and on appeal, Attorney Noel argued that the trial court’s jury instruction regarding the offense of Carrying a Firearm Without a License was legally deficient because it erroneously defined that crime as a strict liability offense. Additionally, Attorney Noel argued that the trial court’s erroneous instruction on the firearms offense irreparably tainted the jury’s verdict as to the offense of Aggravated Assault. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania adopted Attorney Noel’s arguments in full, vacated her client’s convictions, and remanded for a new trial.

Attorney Noel’s client was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault, and was sentenced to serve 15 to 30 years in prison. Attorney Noel was retained to litigate a petition under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act, and alleged several claims involving ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Attorney Noel argued that her client’s trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the omission of a “no-adverse-inference” instruction from the trial court’s closing instructions to the jury. Attorney Noel further argued that her client’s appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, which would have resulted in automatic reversal of her client’s convictions and sentences. The trial court agreed and granted Attorney Noel’s client relief in the form of a new trial.

Attorney Noel was retained to investigate whether the defendant had potentially meritorious claims under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act, also known as the “PCRA.” After completing a diligent and thorough investigation of her client’s criminal history and the facts of the case, Attorney Noel realized that her client’s offense should have been graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree, not a felony of the first degree.

Following the submission of a robust Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition, of which Attorney Noel was the sole author, and an evidentiary hearing on the claims raised, the PCRA Court found that trial counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for failing to request an “imperfect” self-defense jury instruction, when requesting such an instruction had been the plan all along. As a result, the PCRA Court vacated Attorney Noel’s client’s murder conviction and granted him a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Attorney Noel is back before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after that Court granted yet another Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by Attorney Noel. This time, the Court is slated to decide important questions surrounding how much notice the Commonwealth is required to provide to criminal defendants of its intent to offer expert testimony regarding common victim responses and behaviors. Attorney Noel has also asked the Supreme Court decide whether the proposed expert must prepare, and the Commonwealth must disclose, a detailed report stating the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; the substance of the facts to which the expert is expected to testify; and a summary of the expert's opinions and the grounds for each opinion.

Following a sentencing hearing where the trial court imposed a sentence of over 20 to 40 years, private counsel withdrew as counsel of record and requested the appointment of court appointed counsel to represent the client on appeal. The trial court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and appointed the Fayette County Office of the Public Defender. An attorney from that office was assigned, but failed to take any action to protect the client’s constitutional right to appeal and, unfortunately, allowed the statutory timeframe within which to file a direct appeal lapse.

After being convicted by a jury of committing various sex offenses against a minor, the sentencing court imposed a term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years on a single count, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, pursuant to a mandatory sentencing provision.  On appeal, Attorney Noel argued that the mandatory sentencing provision at issue had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 2016, and that the sentence imposed was therefore illegal.

After being convicted of rape and related offenses and sentenced to nearly 30 to 60 years in prison, Attorney Noel’s client appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.  On appeal, Attorney Noel argued that highly prejudicial testimony from a detective, which took the form of expert opinion evidence and which tended to impermissibly bolster the credibility of the accuser, was admitted against her client without the detective being properly qualified by the Commonwealth as an expert witness.  Finding that the testimony was not expert in nature, the Superior Court upheld the convictions.

Attorney Noel’s client pled guilty to delivering heroin laced with fentanyl to an undercover police officer.  At sentencing, the trial judge applied an incorrect prior record score based on the client’s two prior juvenile adjudications and also imposed separate sentences for the delivery charges – one for delivering heroin and one for delivering fentanyl.

In 2019 alone, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted two petitions for allowance of appeal filed by Attorney Noel on behalf of her clients.  This is notable because, unlike the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, to which defendants have a right to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepts only about 30 non-capital criminal cases per year on a discretionary basis.

Attorney Noel once again earned the attention of Pennsylvania’s highest court, this time after filing a petition for allowance of appeal on behalf of a client convicted of rape and related sex offenses.  On appeal, Attorney Noel sought a new trial for her client on the grounds that expert testimony was improperly admitted against him. 

In seeking a new trial for her client based on evidence improperly admitted against him, Attorney Noel successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to address what is known as the harmless error doctrine, an important procedural device that comes in to play in almost all criminal appeals.  The Supreme Court’s decision will have an enormous impact on appellate procedure for criminal cases heard across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Attorney Noel provided representation to a client who had been convicted of rape and related sexual offenses.  The client appealed his conviction and sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing.  During the ensuing resentencing hearing at which Attorney Noel provided representation, the trial judge conducted a constitutionally inadequate resentencing hearing.

Attorney Noel’s client was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to 7 to 14 years in state prison.  Attorney Noel’s client used force to defend himself against his brother, who, at the time of the incident, was on parole for the robbery and murder of a man he beat to death.

Attorney Noel’s client was charged with fleeing or attempting to elude the police after fleeing from a traffic stop.  During the course of the traffic stop, the conduct of the police – namely, becoming belligerent toward Attorney Noel’s client, punching his car window and reaching for their firearms – caused Attorney Noel’s client to feel very threatened and to flee from the traffic stop in his car. 

Attorney Noel appealed her client’s sentence following her convictions for three counts of driving under the influence and related summary violations of the Motor Vehicle Code.  The Commonwealth charged Attorney Noel’s client with three counts of DUI – DUI-general impairment, DUI-general impairment and refusing breath/blood alcohol testing, DUI-general impairment where an accident resulting in damage to a vehicle occurred – all based on a single instance of drunk driving.

Attorney Noel successfully appealed the convictions of a man convicted of illegally possessing firearms and several pounds of marijuana on the grounds that he was not brought to trial in a speedy manner.  Attorney Noel’s client fled from the arresting officer, was not charged until two years later, and was not brought to trial until over four years later despite the fact that his identity was known. 

Attorney Noel’s client was convicted of disorderly conduct for giving his ex-wife the middle finger.  On appeal, Attorney Noel argued that her client’s conduct was speech protected by the First Amendment and, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support her client’s conviction under Pennsylvania’s disorderly conduct statute.  The Superior Court agreed and reversed her client’s conviction.