Com. v. Brown, R.
Com. v. Brown, R. No. 1348 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 12, 2017Background
- Appellant Roland Brown committed a series of robberies and related violent offenses in Philadelphia between August and September 2013; many victims were tased, punched, or cut and one car was stolen. Appellant was accompanied and aided by Mary Jefferies in multiple incidents.
- Brown waived a jury and was tried before a judge in November 2015; he was convicted of multiple counts including robbery, robbery of a motor vehicle, conspiracy, assault, and related offenses.
- At sentencing on April 22, 2016 the court imposed an aggregate term of 45 to 90 years’ imprisonment, with consecutive sentences on several robbery counts. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Appellant appealed, raising (1) that his sentence was manifestly excessive and the court failed to consider rehabilitative factors, and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conspiracy conviction as to the Norton robbery because Jefferies acted under duress and there was no meeting of the minds.
- The Superior Court reviewed discretionary-aspect sentencing claims and sufficiency-of-the-evidence for conspiracy, affirming the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate 45–90 year sentence (including consecutive robbery terms) is an abuse of discretion / unduly harsh | Brown: consecutive terms effectively amount to a life sentence, shock the conscience; court failed to state adequate reasons or consider rehabilitation and mitigating factors | Commonwealth: court acted within sentencing discretion, considered guidelines, PSI, facts, victim impact and appellant’s background; consecutive sentences permissible under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721 | Court: No abuse of discretion. Consecutive sentences not per se a substantial question; record and court’s statements + PSI support that sentencing considerations were weighed; sentence affirmed |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support conspiracy conviction for the Norton robbery because Jefferies acted under duress (no meeting of minds) | Brown: Jefferies was coerced (burned with a cigar) and thus there was no agreement/meeting of minds to form a conspiracy | Commonwealth: conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence—relation, participation, conduct; Jefferies testified to active participation and later pled guilty; duress defense does not negate conspiracy as to Brown | Court: Sufficient evidence of conspiracy. Tacit agreement and Jefferies’ participation supported conviction; duress claim did not defeat Commonwealth’s proof and was not raised by Jefferies at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard: sentencing is within trial court discretion; appellate relief requires manifest abuse)
- Dodge v. Commonwealth, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive sentences raise a substantial question only in extreme/unduly harsh cases)
- Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (elements of criminal conspiracy)
- Feliciano v. Commonwealth, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (conspiratorial agreement may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (where PSI is in the record, appellate courts presume the sentencing judge considered relevant mitigating information)