Com. v. Baldwin, J.
1643 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 24, 2017Background
- Jason R. Baldwin participated in a series of seven successful residential burglaries across Montgomery, Berks, and Chester Counties in July 2012 and one attempted burglary of an eighth house.
- He was charged on over 40 counts and entered open guilty pleas to: burglary (one completed burglary), attempted burglary (the unsuccessful entry), and conspiracy (to commit burglary relating to the seven completed burglaries).
- Commonwealth agreed to nol pros remaining charges and to a sentencing cap of 4–8 years; sentencing proceeded after a corrected prior record score was announced at court.
- At sentencing Baldwin received consecutive prison terms of 2–4 years for burglary and 2–4 years for attempted burglary, and 10 years’ probation for conspiracy; restitution was ordered but the amount was not stated on the record.
- Baldwin filed a pro se motion seeking concurrent sentences (denied), then appealed raising merger, prior record score, and restitution challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy and attempted burglary must merge under 18 Pa.C.S. § 906 | Baldwin: conspiracy and attempt are inchoate offenses designed to culminate in the same crime (burglary) and thus must merge | Commonwealth: conspiracy related to seven completed burglaries; attempted burglary concerned a different, unsuccessful burglary — different acts and different underlying offenses | Court held no merger: convictions arise from separate criminal acts (different residences); conspiracy concerned completed burglaries distinct from the attempt |
| Whether sentencing used incorrect prior record score | Baldwin: court applied an incorrect prior record score (changed from 3 to 5), rendering sentence improper | Commonwealth: correction was announced at sentencing; Baldwin and counsel did not object or preserve the claim | Court held claim waived for appellate review because Baldwin did not preserve/contest the corrected prior record score at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion |
| Whether restitution order was legally supported and within court authority | Baldwin: restitution amount (and authority to order it) was unsupported by the record and may exceed victims’ loss | Commonwealth/Trial Court: Baldwin stipulated to restitution and restitution sheets were provided to the court | Court held restitution portion of sentence unsupported: amount was never stated on the record and restitution sheets were not in the record; vacated restitution and remanded for proper proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 491 A.2d 196 (Pa. Super. 1985) (Section 906 prevents multiple inchoate convictions where designed to culminate in a single crime)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 486 A.2d 441 (Pa. Super. 1985) (conspiracy and attempted burglary merged where both involved a single scheme to burglarize one house)
- Commonwealth v. Kingston, 143 A.3d 917 (Pa. 2016) (Section 906 not a blanket bar on multiple inchoate convictions; applies where inchoate offenses were aimed at a single underlying crime)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 155 A.3d 69 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc) (restitution is part of sentence; court must state amount on the record and the Commonwealth bears burden to prove restitution amount)