Com. v. Burrell, D., Com. v. Burrell, D. No. 660 MDA 2016

Background

Donald C. Burrell was charged in 2013 with more than 200 sex-related offenses for repeated sexual abuse of his daughter over approximately 20 years; similar charges had been filed in 2002 but nolle prossed after the victim recanted.
Pretrial, Burrell challenged his competency, moved to suppress files seized from his laptop as overbroad, and argued collateral estoppel/double jeopardy as to the earlier (nolle prossed) charges.
A competency hearing produced competing expert opinions; the trial court found Burrell competent, crediting Commonwealth experts who found malingering.
A search warrant authorized seizure of computer files related to the victim, child pornography, and drug trafficking; the court denied suppression, finding the warrant particularized enough and no evidence of over-seizure.
At trial the victim testified and a calendar the defendant kept documenting sexual encounters (200+ entries) and electronic communications were admitted; a jury convicted Burrell on all counts.
The court imposed consecutive sentences producing an aggregate term effectively amounting to life (1,031 to 2,546 years as summarized on appeal; trial-court entry lists months), denied post-sentence motions, and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency to stand trial	Commonwealth: Burrell was competent; experts found malingering and adequate ability to consult with counsel.	Burrell: severe dementia rendered him incompetent; trial court should have ordered further/long-term evaluation.	Court accepted Commonwealth experts, found Dr. Palmer's evaluation deficient (no malingering testing, no collateral record review), and held Burrell competent.
Suppression — computer search warrant particularity	Commonwealth: warrant and affidavit supplied probable cause and were as particular as practicable; no proof of improper export of unrelated files.	Burrell: warrant was overbroad, permitted general rummaging of private computer files.	Court held warrant sufficiently particularized given charges and investigative context; denial of suppression affirmed.
Collateral estoppel / double jeopardy re: prior nolle prosequi	Commonwealth: nolle prosequi is not an acquittal and does not bar later prosecution; prior withdrawal did not decide issues.	Burrell: prior prosecution and long delay should bar relitigation of earlier charges under collateral estoppel/double jeopardy.	Court held collateral estoppel not met (no final judgment or actually litigated issue) and nolle prosequi does not invoke double jeopardy.
Sufficiency of evidence & sentencing discretion	Commonwealth: victim testimony, defendant’s calendar and electronic communications sufficiently proved counts; sentencing within court’s discretion given severity and facts.	Burrell: evidence insufficient (no testimony to each incident, no corroboration/DNA); sentence excessive/abuse of discretion.	Court held evidence sufficient when viewed in Commonwealth’s favor (calendar and corroborating communications); sentencing was discretionary and not manifestly unreasonable, so no relief.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (competency standard focuses on ability to consult with counsel and understand proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression-motion determinations)
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (particularity requirement for search warrants and measuring description against items for which probable cause exists)
Commonwealth v. Holder, 805 A.2d 499 (Pa. 2002) (elements for applying collateral estoppel in criminal context)
Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court competency findings when record supports resolution of conflicting expert testimony)
United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2009) (discussing practical limits and methodology of computer searches under warrants)