Com. v. Banks, J., 1286 WDA 2016

On Oct. 10, 2014 Anthony Matthews was attacked in his Pittsburgh apartment by three men; he was stabbed multiple times and beaten; thieves stole electronics. Matthews identified James and Jerome Banks (brothers of his ex-girlfriend) as attackers.
Matthews gave an out-of-hospital identification to a paramedic while believing he was dying, later identified both brothers in photo arrays at the hospital, and testified consistently at trial about recognizing them by face and voice.
Police did not recover the knives; limited forensic evidence existed (no usable fingerprints/DNA linking Banks to the scene; brick yielded no usable evidence).
James Banks was tried and the jury convicted him of attempted homicide, robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and related conspiracy counts (acquitted only on conspiracy to commit homicide). Sentence: aggregate 26–52 years’ imprisonment plus 5 years’ probation.
Post‑sentence, Banks challenged (1) weight of the evidence as to identity, (2) discretionary aspects of sentencing, and (3) legality of the robbery sentence. The Superior Court affirmed the weight ruling, agreed the robbery sentence was illegal (split sentence exceeded statutory maximum), vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence as to Banks's identity	Commonwealth: Victim’s in‑ambulance ID, hospital photo‑array IDs, neighbor corroboration, and overall credibility supported conviction	Banks: No physical/scientific evidence; victim gave inconsistent names; alibi evidence; identification unreliable	Trial court did not abuse discretion; weight challenge denied (credibility/resolution of conflicts for jury)
Whether the sentence’s discretionary aspects were an abuse of discretion	Commonwealth: Sentences were within guideline ranges and supported by victim impact and PSR; consecutive terms justified	Banks: Sentence manifestly excessive; court failed to account for history, character, rehabilitative needs; sought concurrent sentences	Superior Court did not decide discretionary claim on merits because it vacated sentence as illegal; trial court had justified consecutive, standard‑range sentences had it addressed them
Whether the robbery sentence was illegal because the split sentence exceeded the statutory maximum	Commonwealth: conceded the split sentence produced punishment exceeding the statutory maximum for first‑degree felony robbery	Banks: Challenged legality — probation consecutive to incarceration produced potential > statutory max	Held illegal: 8–16 years incarceration plus 5 years consecutive probation could produce >20 years (statutory max); sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard and deference for weight‑of‑evidence review)
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (plenary review for legality of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Dickson, 918 A.2d 95 (Pa. 2007) (legality challenges are not waivable)
Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentence exceeding statutory maximum is illegal and remand required)
Commonwealth v. Dobbs, 682 A.2d 388 (Pa. Super. 1996) (prefer remand when court correction may upset sentencing scheme)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (weight‑of‑evidence principles and scope of review)
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 911 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate review limited to abuse of discretion where trial court ruled on weight claim)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for discretionary‑aspects sentencing appeals)
Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2015) (what constitutes a substantial question challenging sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard‑range sentences generally appropriate under Sentencing Code)