Com. v. Eddington, J., Com. v. Eddington, J. No. 210 MDA 2016

Background

Appellant Jason Eddington used aliases (including “Frank Winans”) while operating a tree-trimming/roofing scam targeting elderly, often living-alone victims; victims were pressured to pay inflated sums for minimal or poor work.
Arrest occurred July 25, 2012; Commonwealth filed four related criminal matters consolidated for trial; Appellant was tried by jury September 3–5, 2014.
Jury convicted Appellant of multiple counts: theft by deception, conspiracy, deceptive business practices, and home improvement fraud; court ordered a PSI and restitution.
Appellant proceeded pro se at trial with stand-by counsel after firing/rotating multiple appointed attorneys and filing numerous pro se motions; sentencing (after reconsideration) resulted in an aggregate 24–84 months with RRRI eligibility and restitution orders.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders/McClendon brief seeking withdrawal; the Superior Court performed independent review and addressed numerous claimed errors raised by Appellant pro se and in counsel’s brief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Eddington)	Held
1. Judicial recusal	Judge was impartial; no basis to recuse	Judge had been neighbor of a witness 22 years earlier; appearance of impropriety	Waived on appeal; meritless in any event—acquaintance 22 years prior did not create reasonable appearance of bias
2. Exclusion of defense handwriting expert	Expert testimony was inconclusive and would not assist jury; Commonwealth’s expert was available	Trial court abused discretion by excluding Appellant’s handwriting expert testimony	No abuse of discretion; inconclusive opinion would not help jury and was cumulative given other ID evidence
3. Admission of prison letters/signature samples	Prison letters were irrelevant and unauthenticated; no lay witness with pre‑charge familiarity	Letters and samples should have been admitted for handwriting comparison	Properly excluded for lack of authentication and absence of a lay witness familiar with handwriting prior to the charges
4. Rule 600 (speedy trial) denial	Commonwealth exercised due diligence; many delays were attributable to defense motions and requests	Delays violated Rule 600 and warranted dismissal	No abuse of discretion; trial court excluded substantial time attributable to defense, adjusted run date met
5. Brady claim (bank surveillance video)	No suppression; video was never provided by bank and thus unavailable to prosecution	Failure to disclose surveillance video prejudiced defense	No Brady violation—video did not exist/was not in Commonwealth’s possession and thus could not have been suppressed
6. Suppression of items seized (warrant execution)	Any procedural Rule 203 defect was technical and did not rise to constitutional dimension; evidence admissible	Warrant procedures (audio-visual verification) violated, requiring suppression	Denial of suppression affirmed—technical noncompliance did not substantially prejudice accused and exclusionary rule not warranted
7. Right to present closing argument/theory	Court properly limited argument to evidence and rules; interruptions were to prevent improper argument/testimony	Appellant was prevented from explaining theory of the case in closing	No deprivation—Appellant presented theory through testimony and argument within evidentiary limits
8. Restitution order	Restitution supported by roofing expert testimony showing damage from defendant’s conduct	Victim allegedly testified she was not owed money; restitution improper	Restitution upheld—record supports that victim suffered damages directly resulting from criminal conduct
9. Sentencing discretionary aspects	N/A (Commonwealth)	Sentence excessive/vindictive; failed to consider mitigation and run concurrently	Appellant failed to raise a substantial question for review; discretionary sentencing not disturbed

Key Cases Cited

In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (presumption of judge’s fairness and standard for recusal)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders/McClendon withdrawal requirements)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court’s duty to conduct independent review after Anders brief)
Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 600 principles and due diligence analysis)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Commonwealth v. Mason, 490 A.2d 421 (Pa. 1985) (technical violations of criminal procedure rules do not automatically trigger exclusionary rule)
Commonwealth v. Abu–Jamal, 555 A.2d 846 (Pa. 1989) (pro se litigant must follow same procedural rules as counsel)