Com. v. Allen, M.
Com. v. Allen, M. No. 1076 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 22, 2017Background
- Michael Allen was tried for four separate robberies (two F1, two F2) plus related terroristic threats, intimidation, and retaliation arising from events in Feb–July 2012; jury convicted on all counts after an August 2014 trial.
- Victims, arresting officers, and surveillance evidence (two store videos) were introduced; a detective testified he observed similarities between videos and used that to prepare a photo array.
- Allen was removed from the courtroom during trial for repeated disruptive conduct after warnings and was permitted to view proceedings by closed-circuit television.
- At sentencing (Nov. 10, 2014) the court imposed lengthy consecutive and concurrent terms aggregating 35–70 years; post-sentence motion denied by operation of law and Allen appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the trial court issued sua sponte “corrected” sentencing orders altering grading/terms without notifying Allen or holding a resentencing hearing; the Superior Court found those corrected orders a nullity.
- The Superior Court vacated the original sentence because one robbery count had been sentenced above the statutory maximum (an illegal sentence) and remanded for resentencing in all four dockets; other trial rulings (removal from courtroom, detective lay-opinion testimony) were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal from courtroom | Trial court removed Allen without adequate warning and without jury instruction that removal was not evidence of guilt | Removal was justified after warnings and counsel consented; Allen remained able to view proceedings | Affirmed: removal lawful under Allen/Basemore after warnings; Allen waived any jury-instruction claim by not objecting |
| Admission of detective lay-opinion (video comparison) | Detective impermissibly offered lay opinion on identity; testimony prejudicial due to detective’s status | Testimony was rationally based on detective’s perception, helpful to explain investigative steps (photo array/warrant) and not specialized | Affirmed: testimony admissible under Pa.R.E.701 and not unfairly prejudicial under Pa.R.E.403 |
| Corrected sentencing orders issued during appeal | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter sentence after appeal; corrected orders are void | Court argued limited power to correct patent clerical or record mistakes | Held: corrected orders are a nullity because trial court vacated/altered sentences while appeal was pending and without notice/hearing; remand for resentencing required |
| Legality of sentence on Docket No. 10494-2013 | Sentence of 7.5–15 years exceeded statutory maximum for second-degree robbery | Trial court conceded grading confusion; Commonwealth concedes error | Vacated: sentence illegal (exceeds 10-year statutory max for 2nd-degree felony); aggregate sentences vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (defendant may be removed after warning if disruptive behavior prevents trial)
- Commonwealth v. Basemore, 582 A.2d 861 (Pa. 1990) (trial court may remove disruptive defendant after warning; defendant may return if comportment changes)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing evidentiary admissibility and application of lay-opinion rule)
- Commonwealth v. Foley, 38 A.3d 882 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Rule 403 prejudice analysis; testimony from veteran police not per se unfairly prejudicial)
- Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate review and rule that illegal sentences must be vacated)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 603 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Super. 1992) (when sentence vacated, parties’ rights revert and resentencing requires defendant’s presence)
- Commonwealth v. Klein, 781 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 2001) (limited power to correct patent clerical or record mistakes after term under narrow circumstances)