Com. v. Dixon, D.
1052 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- In 2008 Duwayne Dixon shot Andre Ripley, who was to testify in an unrelated matter; Ripley suffered severe injuries including prolonged hospitalization and possible blindness.
- A jury convicted Dixon in January 2013 of aggravated assault, conspiracy, criminal attempt (homicide), intimidation of a witness, and retaliation against a witness.
- In March 2013 Judge Williams imposed an aggregate sentence of 28–56 years plus 40 years probation; this Court vacated and remanded for resentencing because of merger and other sentencing errors.
- On remand (June 3, 2015) Judge Williams resentenced Dixon to consecutive terms totaling 20–40 years imprisonment plus seven years probation; Dixon moved for recusal and filed post-sentence motions, all denied.
- Dixon appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive/abusive and that the judge displayed bias (including calling him “Uncle Tom”), and that recusal was required; the Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to the judge’s demonstrated bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dixon) | Defendant's Argument (Trial Court/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing was an abuse of discretion because judge used racial epithet and exhibited bias | Judge used the term “Uncle Tom,” made personal, demeaning attacks, ignored rehabilitation and mitigation, and focused on retribution/double-counted offense severity | Sentencing within statutory limits and sentencing discretion; seriousness of offense warranted severe sentence | Court held judge’s remarks showed partiality, prejudice, bias and ill-will; sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the court improperly relied on facts not in evidence or failed to explain imposing maximum sentence | Judge assumed negative character facts, failed to articulate reasons for maximum sentence and allegedly double-counted offense severity | Judge’s sentencing rationale relied on offense gravity and community harm | Court did not reach these subsidiary claims on merits after concluding bias required vacatur |
| Whether recusal should have been granted due to appearance of impropriety | Appearance of bias and impropriety warranted recusal | Trial court denied recusal; argued judge could remain impartial | Not reached on the merits because sentence vacated on bias ground; remand for resentencing ordered |
| Whether other sentencing errors identified on prior appeal remained unaddressed (merger, statutory maxima) | Prior panel found merger and statutory maximum issues; Dixon relied on those errors to challenge sentencing | Commonwealth had previously defended original sentencing scheme | Superior Court relied on earlier remand and focused on bias; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with prior rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standards for judicial impartiality and when sentencing bias requires relief)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (trial court’s sentence must be vacated if result of judge’s partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will)
- Commonwealth v. Spencer, 496 A.2d 1156 (Pa. Super. 1985) (sentencing judge’s personal insults and threats demonstrated bias warranting vacatur)