Com. v. Dalfonse, V.
Com. v. Dalfonse v. No. 2191 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.May 5, 2017Background
- On Jan. 2, 2014, complainant paid $25 to Dalfonse in expectation of buying marijuana; Dalfonse then produced a revolver, pressed it into the complainant’s stomach, and told him to leave. Complainant later identified Dalfonse from a photo and reported the incident.
- Police searched Dalfonse’s mother’s home (no gun or contraband found); the mother returned $25 to the complainant after the incident.
- After a non-jury trial, Dalfonse was convicted of robbery and multiple firearm- and property-related offenses; he was sentenced to an aggregate 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus five years’ probation.
- Dalfonse appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence for robbery, (2) weight of the evidence, and (3) discretionary aspects of sentence (including consecutive VUFA sentence, alleged failure to consider mitigation, and judicial bias based on his courtroom outburst).
- The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency de novo, weight for abuse of discretion, and discretionary-sentencing claims under Pa. jurisprudence governing substantial-question review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery (18 Pa.C.S. §3701(a)(1)(ii)) | Commonwealth: brandishing a firearm during a theft attempt supports robbery by putting victim in fear of immediate serious bodily injury. | Dalfonse: money was handed over before any threat; firearm had nothing to do with taking the money. | Court held evidence sufficient: brandishing the gun immediately after receiving money was part of the theft scheme and put victim in fear of immediate serious bodily injury. |
| Weight of the evidence as to robbery | Commonwealth: verdict supported by eyewitness testimony and inferences about fear created by a visible firearm. | Dalfonse: greater weight favors theft (no force used); verdict shocks conscience. | Court rejected weight claim as merely a sufficiency repackaging; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Discretionary sentencing — consecutive VUFA sentence | Commonwealth: sentencing court has broad discretion to impose consecutive sentences under §9721. | Dalfonse: consecutive sentence on VUFA was excessive because weapon use already factored into robbery sentence. | Court found no substantial question; sentencing court properly exercised discretion to impose consecutive sentence. |
| Discretionary sentencing — mitigation considered and alleged judicial bias | Commonwealth: sentencing court considered PSI, mental health eval, defendant’s history, courtroom conduct, victim impact, and explained sentence on record. | Dalfonse: court ignored mitigating factors and was prejudiced by his courtroom outburst. | Court held failure-to-consider claim did not raise substantial question; bias claim raised a substantial question but failed on the merits—record shows reasons and no impermissible reliance on improper factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weston v. Commonwealth, 749 A.2d 458 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 924 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2007) (scope of review for legal questions)
- Ross v. Commonwealth, 570 A.2d 86 (Pa. Super. 1990) (focus on nature of threat and victim’s reasonable fear)
- Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (presence or brandishing of a firearm can support inference of mortal fear)
- Thomas v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 116 (Pa. Super. 1988) (firearm appearance elevates threat to deadly injury)
- Scott v. Commonwealth, 369 A.2d 809 (Pa. Super. 1976) (verbal threat not required for robbery conviction under threat theory)
- Tejada v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Karns v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 158 (Pa. Super. 2012) (weight-of-the-evidence principles)
- Swope v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discretionary-sentencing review framework)
- Marts v. Commonwealth, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sentencing court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences under §9721)
- Disalvo v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (inadequate consideration of mitigation generally does not present a substantial question)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when PSI is considered, court is presumed aware of mitigating information)
- McNabb v. Commonwealth, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2003) (allegation that court relied on impermissible factors can present a substantial question)