Attorney Noel’s client was denied pre-trial bail. Attorney Noel filed a Petition for Specialized Review to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania alleging that the lower court’s denial of bail violated Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Commonwealth v. Talley, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania interpreting Article I, Section 14’s bail clause. Because the Commonwealth failed to offer “evident” proof or establish a “great presumption” that Attorney Noel’s client presented a danger to any person or the community, which could not be abated using any available bail conditions, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the lower court’s order denying her client bail.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Attorney Noel’s client was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child for allegedly failing to report sexual abuse perpetrated by her husband.  The accuser had previously made three false sexual assault allegations against other people and the trial court prevented Attorney Noel’s client from introducing evidence of the accuser’s prior false allegations on the grounds that such evidence was barred by Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield Law.