Com. v. Carter, R.
3580 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- On January 29–30, 2014 Pennsylvania State Police stopped a rental car carrying Carter as a passenger and driver Taquece Chitty; neither was the lessee.
- Search of the vehicle uncovered over 14,300 grams (31 pounds) of heroin packaged for sale (over 65,000 individual packets).
- Carter was charged with PWID (heroin), possession of heroin, and possession of drug paraphernalia; acquitted of conspiracy; trial began July 7, 2015.
- Jury convicted Carter of PWID and related possession counts; trial court imposed aggregate sentence of 150 to 312 months (minimum 144 months on PWID).
- Carter appealed claiming: (1) violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 (speedy trial) and (2) sentencing errors — incorrect offense gravity score (OGS) based on drug weight not found by jury and inadequate reasons for exceeding guideline range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 600 speedy-trial dismissal | Commonwealth: delays were excusable or excludable; no Rule 600 violation | Carter: charged Jan 30, 2014; trial July 7, 2015 — >500 days, so violation of 365-day limit | Court: total 523 days minus 265 excludable = 258 days; within 365; no violation, affirmed |
| Use of drug weight to set OGS | Commonwealth: laboratory report established >14,300 g, supporting OGS 13 | Carter: Alleyne/Apprendi require jury to find facts increasing sentence exposure (drug weight) beyond verdict | Court: OGS/guidelines advisory and do not increase statutory maximum; Apprendi/Alleyne inapplicable to guideline OGS; OGS 13 appropriate |
| Sentencing above aggravated range without reasons | Commonwealth: trial court provided reasons including PSI, drug quantity/value, and defendant's statements | Carter: 144-month minimum exceeded aggravated guideline range (126 mos) and court failed to state sufficient reasons | Court: sentencing hearing and notes show explicit, adequate reasons for above-guideline sentence; no abuse of discretion |
| Preservation and reviewability of discretionary-sentencing claim | Commonwealth: procedural requirements met for appellate review | Carter: N/A (asserted substantial question) | Court: all procedural factors satisfied (timely appeal, preserved, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) present, substantial question); merits addressed and denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 19 A.3d 1131 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Rule 600 dual purposes and framework for construing delays)
- Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (challenge to OGS is discretionary-sentencing claim)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Holiday, 954 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sentencing guidelines are advisory and nonbinding)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (guidelines are recommendations, not mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of Apprendi principle regarding facts that expand sentencing exposure)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing maximum authorized punishment must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that raise mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014) (application of Alleyne to mandatory-minimum sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. Super. 2015) (post-Alleyne discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2015) (post-Alleyne sentencing analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super. 2015) (post-Alleyne sentencing analysis)