Com. v. Boltz, R., Sr.
298 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2017Background
- On Jan. 30, 2016, Robert Boltz went to his estranged wife Lynda’s home at night and encountered her boyfriend, James Wosochlo.
- Boltz was armed with a butterfly knife, lunged toward Wosochlo’s torso, and was disarmed after a struggle; Wosochlo suffered a scratch.
- Police recovered the knife; photographs showed Wosochlo’s vehicle had tires slashed, brake lines cut, and profanity scratched into the paint.
- Boltz was convicted of aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), criminal mischief, and harassment; trial court sentenced him to 3½ to 10 years’ imprisonment.
- Boltz appealed, arguing (1) the guilty verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and (2) the sentence was excessive; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions were against the weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: testimony, recovered knife, and vehicle damage supported convictions | Boltz: physical disabilities made attack unlikely; no forensic/circumstantial proof linking him to knife | Court: No abuse of discretion; testimony and recovered knife and vehicle damage support verdicts |
| Whether sentence was an abuse of discretion / excessive | Commonwealth: sentencing within court's discretion | Boltz: aggregate 3½–10 yrs was manifestly excessive and contrary to Sentencing Code | Court: Issue waived (not raised at sentencing or in post‑sentence motion); no review on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Young, 692 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 1997) (standard for weight‑of‑evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Mucci, 143 A.3d 399 (Pa. Super. 2016) (factfinder may accept or reject witness testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Devalos, 779 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2001) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Sims, 728 A.2d 357 (Pa. Super. 1999) (standard for discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Gaddis, 639 A.2d 462 (Pa. Super. 1994) (what raises a substantial question on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 2016) (four‑part test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to raise sentencing claim preserves waiver)