Com. v. Ford, P.
3294 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- In 2013 after a bench trial, Perry Ford (aka Faaruk Hasiym‑Bey) was convicted of unlawful contact with a minor, indecent assault by forcible compulsion, indecent exposure, simple assault, and corruption of minors for a May 28, 2011 incident in which he put an 11‑year‑old mentally disabled child in a headlock and rubbed his exposed penis against her buttocks in public.
- Ford gave an inculpatory statement to police after arrest; he later claimed he was high on PCP and sought suppression, but the trial court denied suppression.
- The trial court sentenced Ford to 8–16 years; on first appeal this Court affirmed convictions but vacated and remanded for clarification of the grading of the corruption‑of‑minors count.
- At re‑sentencing the trial court clarified the corruption count as a misdemeanor and imposed an aggregate sentence of 7–14 years; Ford filed this appeal challenging the new sentence as excessive and re‑raising several prior claims.
- The Superior Court treated many issues as previously litigated or waived, reviewed the record (including the PSI and Ford’s criminal history), and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post‑remand 7–14 year sentence was excessive | Sentence is lawful and within court's discretion given crime gravity and criminal history | Sentence is excessive, driven by emotion; mitigation not adequately weighed | Affirmed — no substantial question; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Ford's inculpatory statement should have been suppressed | Statement admissible; prior denial valid | Statement involuntary due to PCP intoxication; should be suppressed | Previously litigated and rejected; claim waived on remand |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support convictions | Sufficient evidence (including Ford's statement and eyewitnesses) | Evidence insufficient, particularly given victim's impairments | Waived for failure to develop argument; merits rejected if reviewed |
| Whether verdict was against weight of the evidence / denial of counsel at sentencing | Trial court as factfinder properly weighed evidence; sentencing counsel claims waived | Verdict against weight; denied choice of counsel at sentencing | Weight claim beyond scope of remand and meritless; counsel claim waived/not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard and deference for weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate review of weight claims is review of trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (no automatic right to challenge discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PSI creates a presumption the sentencing court considered mitigating information)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sentencing review standard: abuse of discretion required for reversal)