Com. v. Pugh, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 14, 2026
• Docket: 4 WDM 2026
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Kunselman

Opinion

J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALFONSO PUGH : : Petitioner : No. 4 WDM 2026

Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001245-2024

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALFONSO PUGH : : Petitioner : No. 5 WDM 2026

Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001243-2024

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: May 14, 2026

Alfonso Pugh has filed petitions for specialized review of the trial court’s

December 12, 2025 order denying his October 31, 2025 motion for nominal J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

bail following a hearing.1 See Pa.R.A.P. 1610 (providing for review of, inter

alia, an order modifying conditions of release before sentence via petition for

specialized review); Pa.R.A.P. 1762(b)(2) (providing an order relating to bail

when no appeal is pending is subject to review pursuant to Chapter 16 of Rules

of Appellate Procedure); Interest of N.E.M., 311 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2024)

(holding review of a petition for specialized review involving juvenile out-of-

home placement order is mandatory); Commonwealth v. Miller, 319 A.3d

575 (Pa. Super. 2024) (applying N.E.M. to petitions for specialized review of

bail filed under Rule 1610). The Commonwealth filed answers to the petitions

for specialized review. The trial court’s statement of reasons in support of the

bail order was received by this Court on March 12, 2026. See Pa.R.A.P.

1762(e).

Pugh was charged on April 22, 2024, at CP-26-CR-0001243-2024, with

criminal attempt-homicide, conspiracy-criminal homicide, aggravated assault,

robbery, burglary, possession of a firearm prohibited, and aggravated cruelty

to animals after he and two other men committed a home invasion and shot

the victim and his dog. Pugh was also charged on April 23, 2024, at CP-26-

CR-0001245-2024, as to events that occurred on the same day as the

shooting: fleeing or attempt to elude an officer, DUI controlled substance-

impaired ability-1st offense; driving license suspended revoked-DUI 3rd or

____________________________________________

1 We deem Pugh’s petitions timely filed given the prisoner’s mailbox rule. See Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 234 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2012).

-2- J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

subsequent violation; BAC .02 or greater-2nd offense; use or possession of

drug paraphernalia; and summary offenses.

Bail was denied by the magisterial district judge in April of 2024, and

the charges in both cases were bound over for trial. Pugh’s original motion

for nominal bail under Criminal Rule 600(D)(2) (regarding defendant held in

pretrial incarceration beyond 180 days from date on which complaint filed)

was denied by the trial court on March 28, 2025, following a hearing. Pugh

filed another motion for immediate release on nominal bail on October 31,

2025. Following a hearing on December 8, 2025, the trial court denied the

bail motion on December 12, 2025, and Pugh remains incarcerated in county

prison. His trial is scheduled to commence on June 1, 2026.

This Court reviews orders denying bail for an abuse of discretion,

reversing only where the trial court misapplies the law, its judgment is

manifestly unreasonable, or the evidence of record shows that its decision is

a result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Commonwealth v. Bishop,

829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2003). The “scope of review is limited to

the record evidence adduced at the bail hearing and the findings of the [trial]

court, reviewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”

Commonwealth v. Talley, 265 A.3d 485, 527 (Pa. 2021). The trial court’s

denial of bail should be affirmed “if [the court’s] factual findings are supported

by competent evidence of record, and [its] legal conclusions drawn therefrom

are correct.” Id.

-3- J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

The right to bail, with certain exceptions, is enshrined in Article I,

Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, providing in pertinent part:

All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses or for offenses for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or unless no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community when the proof is evident or presumption great[.]

Pa. Const. art. I, § 14. Our Supreme Court has concluded that:

a trial court may deny bail under Article I Section 14 when the Commonwealth’s proffered evidence makes it substantially more likely than not that the accused: (1) committed a capital offense[;] (2) committed an offense that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment[;] or (3) presents a danger to any person and the community, which cannot be abated using any available bail conditions. That determination requires a qualitative assessment of the Commonwealth’s case.

Talley, 265 A.3d at 525-26. The High Court also provided a non-exhaustive

list of factors a trial court should consider in reviewing bail, including: (1) the

defendant’s character; (2) relevant behavioral history or past patterns of

conduct; (3) the gravity of the charged offense; (4) the conditions of bail

reasonably available to the court; and (5) any evidence that tends to show

that those conditions would be inadequate to ensure the protection of any

person or the community.2 The Court stated that “[i]f the balance of the ____________________________________________

2 These factors largely mirror factors set forth in Criminal Rule 523(A) (relating

to release criteria) which include: (1) the nature of the offense charged and any mitigating or aggravating factors that may bear upon the likelihood of conviction and possible penalty; (2) the defendant’s employment status and history, and financial condition; (3) the nature of the defendant’s family (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-4- J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

evidence is rife with uncertainty, legally is incompetent, requires excessive

inferential leaps, or lacks any indicia of credibility, it is simply not evident

proof, nor can it give rise to a great presumption, that the accused is not

entitled to bail.” Id. at 526.

Additionally, Criminal Rule 600(D)(2) provides as follows:

(2) Except in cases in which the defendant is not entitled to release on bail as provided by law, when a defendant is held in pretrial incarceration beyond [180 days from the date on which the complaint is filed], at any time before trial, the defendant’s attorney, or the defendant if unrepresented, may file a written motion requesting that the defendant be released immediately on nominal bail subject to any nonmonetary conditions of bail imposed by the court as permitted by law. A copy of the motion shall be served on the attorney for the Commonwealth concurrently with filing. The judge shall conduct a hearing on the motion.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(2).

In his petitions for specialized review, Pugh argued that, in light of the

fact that the Commonwealth conceded that the Rule 600, 180-day pretrial

relationships; (4) the length and nature of the defendant’s residence in the community, and any past residences; (5) the defendant’s age, character, reputation, mental condition, and whether addicted to alcohol or drugs; (6) if the defendant has previously been released on bail, where he or she appeared as required and complied with the conditions of bail bond; (7) whether the defendant has any record of flight to avoid arrest or prosecution, or of escape or attempted escape; (8) the defendant’s prior criminal record; (9) any use of false identification; and (10) any other factors relevant to whether the defendant will appear as required and comply with the conditions of the bail bond.

-5- J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

incarceration period had passed at both bail hearings,3 the trial court

neglected to engage in a complete factual and legal analysis of evidence

produced at the hearings regarding his right to nominal bail guaranteed by

Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. He also claims the court

ignored his exculpatory testimony as to his background, failed to offer any

written analysis in support of the bail decision, and that there was a lack of

competent testimony or evidence adduced by the Commonwealth that he

presents a danger to any person and the community, which cannot be abated

using any available bail conditions.

In its answers to Pugh’s petitions for specialized review, the

Commonwealth asks this Court to affirm the denial of nominal bail, which it

avers was supported by the law and record. The Commonwealth agrees with

the trial court that Pugh is a danger to the community and the victim, which

cannot be abated via pretrial services, such as electronic monitoring under

house arrest. The Commonwealth submits that the trial court considered the

appropriate factors in denying bail, including the significance of the crimes,

the possible sentences if convicted, Pugh’s familial ties, and his significant

criminal history, which includes firearm and flight offenses, such that the

Commonwealth views Pugh as a flight risk. According to the Commonwealth,

because Pugh testified at the December bail hearing that he intended to enter

a guilty plea to new charges involving the introduction of contraband into the ____________________________________________

3 See N.T., 3/26/25, at 4-5; N.T., 12/8/25, at 5.

-6- J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

prison in June 2025, Pugh remains a danger to society even from within the

county prison.

In its statement of reasons from the denial of nominal bail, the trial court

concluded that there is no condition or combination of conditions that would

reasonably assure the safety of the community. With regard to the crimes

charged, the court stated that Pugh’s fingerprints were found on the

“[victim’s] door” and that Pugh was unknown to the victim at the time. Trial

Court Statement, 3/9/26, at 1-2 (unnumbered). The court also referred to

Pugh’s prior criminal history, which includes drug possession with intent to

deliver and firearm offenses, resisting arrest, fleeing and eluding, and reckless

endangerment in connection with a high-speed chase. The court further noted

that Pugh was scheduled to enter a guilty plea for an incident that occurred

while incarcerated at the county prison where he was charged with conspiracy

in a case involving the shooting of an arrow containing contraband onto the

jail grounds. The court did not find Pugh’s testimony to be credible that he

was accepting a plea for a crime for which he was not involved. Instead, the

court opined that Pugh “remains a danger to society even from the confines

of the Fayette County Jail.” Id. The court concluded that Pugh “presents a

danger to persons in the community which cannot be abated by any available

bail conditions.” Id.

Our review of the record amply supports the trial court’s conclusions.

The court properly considered multiple Talley factors, including the gravity of

the charged offenses, Pugh’s significant prior criminal history, which included

-7- J-M02001-26 & J-M02002-26

conviction for fleeing and eluding, as well as the charge arising from the prison

incident, for which the court found Pugh’s testimony to be “adverse to [his]

argument for nominal bail at this time.” Id.

In sum, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of

bail on the basis that Pugh presents a danger to the community that cannot

be abated by any bail conditions. Thus, pursuant to N.E.M.’s mandate to

consider petitions for specialized review on their merits, we affirm the trial

court’s December 12, 2025 order.

Order affirmed.

DATE: 5/14/2026

-8-