182 A.3d 449
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background:
- Che Donte King pleaded guilty to drug offenses and to offenses arising from a hit-and-run collision that later caused the pedestrian’s death; the trial court originally imposed an aggregate 5–10 year term plus probation.
- An appellate panel vacated one sentence as exceeding the statutory maximum and remanded for resentencing; at resentencing the court received an ex parte victim-impact letter from the decedent’s wife.
- The letter described the family’s loss and asked for consecutive or lengthy incarceration, but also contained one disparaging sentence about defense counsel.
- Defense counsel objected to admission of the letter and to consideration of the disparaging remark; the trial court admitted the letter, overruled the objection, and restructured the sentence to make it legal while leaving the aggregate term unchanged.
- King appealed, arguing the court considered irrelevant and improper material (violating victim‑impact statutes and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel) and that the disparaging comment required a new sentencing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim-impact letter | Commonwealth: letter was proper victim-impact evidence; only one sentence was improper but did not render letter inadmissible | King: the disparaging sentence made the entire letter inadmissible under 18 P.S. § 11.201 and § 9738 | Court: letter admissible; majority of letter was relevant victim-impact material and judge did not abuse discretion |
| Consideration of letter in sentencing (improper influence) | Commonwealth: judge was not unduly influenced; relied on presentence report and sentencing factors | King: the disparaging remark influenced judge to contemplate consecutive terms and undermined weighing of mitigation (e.g., HIV status) | Court: no abuse of discretion; experienced judge could disregard the improper comment and properly balanced sentencing factors |
| Constitutional claim (Sixth Amendment/right to counsel) | King: attacks on counsel in the letter impaired his right to effective representation | Commonwealth: letter did not show any actual impairment of counsel’s performance | Court: claim failed—King did not show how counsel’s performance was prejudiced; generalized allegation insufficient |
| Whether disparaging remarks require automatic resentencing | King: any personal attacks on counsel should trigger a new sentencing | Commonwealth: not per se reversible; judge should curtail but can consider the rest of the statement | Court: remarks condemned but not per se reversible; judge should redact/curtail attacks in future; no new sentencing required here |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (purpose of victim-impact evidence is to humanize the victim and show unique loss)
- Commonwealth v. Penrod, 578 A.2d 486 (Pa. Super. 1989) (victim impact statements may convey emotion and personalize crime)
- Commonwealth v. Flora, 988 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2010) (victim evidence beyond statutory text may be admissible to show victim’s character and impact)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2013) (admissibility of victim-impact evidence rests in court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 574 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 1990) (inflammatory statements are less likely to prejudice an experienced judge than a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 712 A.2d 746 (Pa. 1998) (statutorily prohibited evidence at trial can require reversal; distinguished from sentencing context)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (when court is informed by presentence report, appellate courts presume meaningful balancing at sentencing)