Com. v. Carroll, A., Jr.
Com. v. Carroll, A., Jr. No. 88 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Appellant Artis C. Carroll Jr. was arrested for defiant trespass after two incidents at Millersville University: March 27, 2015 (served with a no‑trespass/suspension notice) and March 31, 2015 (returned to campus). The March 27 charge was docketed separately and later consolidated with the March 31 charge.
- At trial (Dec. 1, 2015) the jury acquitted Carroll of the March 27 trespass but convicted him of defiant trespass for March 31, 2015. He was sentenced to time served up to 12 months, with immediate parole and conditions including no contact with Millersville and a mental‑health evaluation.
- Carroll appealed pro se, raising multiple issues (admission/exclusion of audio/video recordings, double jeopardy, Fourteenth Amendment due‑process re: university suspension, sufficiency of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing challenges). Most issues were undeveloped or waived on appeal.
- The Superior Court limited review to the sufficiency claim (unwaived and argued): whether evidence proved Carroll knowingly entered campus after receiving notice against trespass on March 27.
- The trial court and Superior Court found the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that Carroll had actual communication of the no‑trespass/suspension notice on March 27 and knowingly returned March 31, supporting the defiant trespass conviction.
- Appellant’s other filings (emergency relief, mandamus, jurisdictional challenge) to the Superior Court were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carroll) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of audio/video evidence | Recordings from March 25/26 were improperly excluded; they show his whereabouts and negate allegations | Recordings not properly developed on appeal; insufficiently argued to permit review | Waived/declined to address for lack of developed argument; issue not preserved for relief |
| Double jeopardy (acquittal on March 27 vs. conviction on March 31) | Conviction inconsistent with acquittal; double jeopardy violation | Inconsistent verdicts permissible; acquittal may reflect jury lenity and does not preclude conviction on separate incident | Rejected; inconsistent verdicts are allowed and do not require reversal where evidence supports conviction |
| University suspension/due process | Millersville suspended him without a Judicial Affairs hearing and suspended him without due process prior to criminal conviction | Disciplinary/suspension claims were not developed on criminal appeal; not pertinent to sufficiency of criminal evidence | Not addressed on merits (undeveloped/waived); criminal conviction sustained based on notice and trespass evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for March 31 trespass | Insufficient proof that he received notice or knowingly remained on campus | Testimony established he was personally served with suspension/no‑trespass on March 27 and returned March 31; elements of defiant trespass proven | Held: Evidence sufficient to prove he entered/ remained knowingly after actual communication of notice; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Pliler, 41 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2012) (court will not act as appellant’s counsel; issues not developed may be waived)
- Houck v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 443 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Namack v. Commonwealth, 663 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 1995) (elements of defiant trespass include notice and mens rea)
- Swann v. Commonwealth, 635 A.2d 1103 (Pa. Super. 1994) (inconsistent verdicts do not require reversal if evidence supports conviction)
- Talbert v. Commonwealth, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (inconsistent verdicts are not a basis for reversal)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 103 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2014) (acquittal cannot be used to draw inferences about other convictions)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 721 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Super. 1998) (issues not properly raised and developed in briefs will not be considered)
- Greenwalt v. Commonwealth, 796 A.2d 996 (Pa. Super. 2002) (pro se status does not afford special benefits; litigant bears risk of lack of legal training)
- Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se filings does not relieve obligation to properly present issues)
- Arrington v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014) (ineffective assistance claims often deferred to collateral review under the Post Conviction Relief Act)