Com. v. Carpio-Santiago, J.
1884 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 21, 2016Background
- On May 17, 2015, homeowners Ivan and Yanilda Hernandez experienced an attempted burglary; a male (Eddie Rosado) was seen at a window and fled toward a departing beige/champagne four‑door Honda.
- Ivan chased Rosado briefly, saw the vehicle leave, and ~30 minutes later identified three men (Rosado, Carlos Ramos‑Perez, and appellant Juan R. Carpio‑Santiago) in a police stop of a car matching the description.
- Police recovered a pocket knife on the driver (Ramos‑Perez) with signs of use; Rosado later gave a statement implicating Carpio‑Santiago, saying the burglary was Carpio‑Santiago’s idea; Rosado subsequently pled guilty to the conspiracy.
- Appellant was tried and convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit burglary and conspiracy to commit criminal trespass; the counts merged for sentencing.
- On October 5, 2015, the court sentenced appellant to 5 to 20 years’ imprisonment (credit for 141 days); post‑sentence motion denied; appellant appealed raising sufficiency, weight, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of conspiracy | Commonwealth: Identification by victim, Rosado’s statement admitting a conspiracy and that the plan was appellant’s, and overt acts (attempted burglary, flight) support conspiracy convictions | Carpio‑Santiago: Only shown present in a car; victim’s ID unreliable; co‑defendant (Rosado) testified at trial denying appellant’s involvement; no proof of agreement or knowledge | Affirmed: Evidence (victim ID, Rosado’s statement and guilty plea, circumstances) sufficient to permit reasonable jury to infer conspiracy and shared intent |
| Weight of the evidence (verdict shocks conscience) | Commonwealth: Circumstantial evidence and witness statements support conviction; jury weighed credibility | Carpio‑Santiago: Verdict against weight because Rosado recanted at trial and victim ID was unreliable | Denied: Trial court did not abuse discretion; jury credibility determinations stand; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to shock justice |
| Discretionary aspects/excessiveness of sentence | Commonwealth: Sentence within court’s discretion given appellant’s extensive criminal history and need to protect public | Carpio‑Santiago: Sentence illegal/unconstitutional/excessive (bare assertion; no developed argument) | Waived/Denied: Appellant failed to develop legal argument or include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement; even on merits, court did not abuse sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (standard against reweighing evidence on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (appellate review limits and credibility deference)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2003) (weight‑of‑evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sufficiency standard and circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 749 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992 (Pa. Super. 2006) (inference of conspiracy from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for reviewing denial of weight claim)
- Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sentencing discretion and appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (factors to consider in sentencing)