Com. v. Cliett, M.
Com. v. Cliett, M. No. 187 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- In September 2011 Appellant Mark Cliett (6'5", ~280 lbs) entered Walter Green’s home, confronted and repeatedly struck victim Jazar Triple (5'4", 135 lbs); victim lost consciousness, suffered severe head injuries, was hospitalized and later rehabilitated.
- Police found a 4.1-pound metal pipe near the victim with blood on an end and a large hole in the wall; medical testimony said injuries were consistent with a hard blunt object, though the pathologist conceded a pipe could not be definitively proven.
- Cliett was convicted after a non-jury trial of aggravated assault and related offenses; the court applied a Deadly Weapon Enhancement (DWE) and sentenced him to 8–20 years for aggravated assault (within the enhanced guideline range).
- Cliett later pleaded guilty in two unrelated cases; those consecutive sentences produced an aggregate term of 13.5–35 years.
- Post-conviction counsel obtained nunc pro tunc reinstatement of post-sentence rights; appeal followed, challenging: (1) discretionary aspects of sentencing/manifest excessiveness and (2) sufficiency of evidence (intent to cause serious bodily injury) and the application of the DWE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Deadly Weapon Enhancement (DWE) | Commonwealth: Preponderance supported DWE based on pipe proximity, blood, weight, and injury pattern | Cliett: Alleyne requires jury finding/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt for facts increasing mandatory minimums; DWE not proven | Court: Alleyne inapplicable to sentencing enhancements; DWE may be found by judge by preponderance; DWE properly applied here |
| Burden/standard for weapon finding | N/A (Commonwealth advanced preponderance) | Cliett: weapon use must be proven beyond reasonable doubt or by jury | Court: Preponderance standard governs; Alleyne does not convert enhancement to jury question |
| Excessiveness/mitigating factors at sentencing | Cliett: sentence was harsh, court failed to sufficiently weigh background, drinking, mental health | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: considered factors, found lack of rehabilitative potential, victim/community impact | Court: No substantial question; sentencing within enhanced guideline and not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (intent to cause serious bodily injury) | Cliett: insufficient proof of intent to cause serious bodily injury | Commonwealth: repeated, sustained blows (pipe and fists) to much smaller victim support intent | Court: Evidence (assaults, continued punching after unconsciousness, pipe and injuries) sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (framework for preserved discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne does not apply to sentencing enhancements like the DWE)
- Commonwealth v. Hammond, 504 A.2d 940 (Pa. Super. 1986) (preponderance standard adequate to trigger sentencing enhancement)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 2 A.3d 598 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements and sufficiency standards for aggravated assault)
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (when consecutive sentences raise a substantial question and excessiveness review)