Com. v. Giggetts, C., 2773 EDA 2016

On April 18, 2013, Lisa McLawler was carjacked at a Sunoco while pumping gas; the assailant drove off in her 2010 Chrysler Sebring, dragging her and causing significant injuries (sprains, large hematoma, burns, chronic pain).
Surveillance video from the Sunoco and a Citgo (where the victim’s credit card was used ~30–45 minutes later) showed a man with distinctive black-and-red shoes and a particular gait; the Citgo video showed him driving a silver Hyundai Santa Fe with a distinctive roof rack.
Police recovered the stolen vehicle ~30 minutes after the carjacking nearby; appellant owned the Hyundai Santa Fe and was arrested the next day at the Citgo in that vehicle, wearing matching shoes and in possession of the victim’s ID and credit cards.
DNA testing produced a mixture from the steering wheel strongly consistent with appellant and the victim being contributors; other persons’ cards were found on appellant and in his car.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, robbery, and robbery of a motor vehicle (March 2016); sentenced May 13, 2016 to 15–30 years’ imprisonment for robbery and 10 years’ probation for aggravated assault; post-sentence motions denied; appeal followed.
The Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the 15–30 year robbery term exceeded the statutory maximum (trial court mistakenly intended merged sentencing aggregate); convictions otherwise affirmed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault, robbery, and motor-vehicle robbery	Evidence failed to prove appellant committed the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt	Surveillance video, possession of victim’s property, matching shoes and gait, and DNA linked appellant to the vehicle and crime	Convictions affirmed; evidence was sufficient
Weight of the evidence	Verdict was against the weight because the victim did not identify her assailant	Trial court found jury could credit video, DNA, and possession evidence over defense; no abuse of discretion	Weight claim rejected; trial court did not abuse discretion
Legality of sentence (excessive/above statutory maximum)	Sentence of 15–30 years for robbery exceeded statutory maximum given sentencing scheme and prior‑strike considerations	Trial court conceded error (mistaken merger and intended aggregate) and Commonwealth agreed remand appropriate	Judgment of sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing
Merger and sentencing intent	Appellant argued sentencing was improper given merger/confusion between robbery counts	Trial court acknowledged it mistakenly believed one count merged and intended a specific aggregate sentence	Court vacated sentence and remanded for correct resentencing calculations

Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (appellate standard for reviewing legality of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (weight-of-the-evidence review is addressed to trial court)
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 40 A.3d 1250 (appellate scope limited to abuse-of-discretion on weight review)
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (limits and standards for trial court discretion on weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Andrulewicz, 911 A.2d 162 (trier of fact may accept or reject any portion of testimony when assessing credibility)