Com. v. Hamlett, J.
1172 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 11, 2018Background
- Appellant James C. Hamlett, Jr., age 61, took 13-year-old R.E. to a baseball game, later drove her to a remote alley, threatened and restrained her, pressed a sharp object to her neck, forced sexual contact (digital penetration) and then drove her home. R.E. immediately reported the assault and a rape kit showed a fresh neck mark.
- Hamlett was charged with multiple offenses including aggravated indecent assault (count 3 charged as felony 1 under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(2),(a)(3) and (b)), unlawful restraint of a minor, kidnapping, terroristic threats, and related counts; jury convicted on all counts.
- At sentencing the court imposed three mandatory life sentences under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2 based on two prior qualifying sexual convictions.
- On appeal Hamlett raised four claims: (1) insufficiency of evidence on aggravated indecent assault as charged (victim alleged to be under 13 but was 13), (2) insufficiency for unlawful restraint of a minor (no actual risk of serious bodily injury), (3) trial court erred admitting the entire forensic interview as a prior consistent statement, and (4) mandatory life sentences illegal under Alleyne.
- The Superior Court (Bowes, J.) affirmed some rulings, vacated/count- and remanded for resentencing: it vacated the first-degree grading of aggravated indecent assault (because the information charged the victim as under 13 but she was 13), found sufficient evidence for the underlying §3125(a)(2)/(a)(3) (second-degree felony), upheld the unlawful restraint conviction, held admission of the forensic interview was an abuse of discretion but harmless error, and rejected the Alleyne challenge to mandatory sentences based on prior convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hamlett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 3 as charged (aggravated indecent assault graded felony 1 under §3125(b)) | Proof of aggravated indecent assault under (a)(2)/(a)(3) supports conviction; resentencing if grading wrong | Charging document alleged victim <13; evidence showed victim was 13, so Commonwealth failed to prove the charged element and conviction must be vacated | Conviction cannot stand as charged (felony 1). Court vacated first-degree grading but affirmed conviction as lesser-included §3125(a) second-degree felony and remanded for resentencing |
| Sufficiency for unlawful restraint of a minor (§2902(b): restraint exposing victim to risk of serious bodily injury) | Circumstances (headlock, sharp object leaving mark, threats, remote location, age & size disparity) created inherently dangerous situation sufficient to show risk | Commonwealth failed to show actual danger of serious bodily injury (object unidentified; Schilling requires actual danger) | Evidence sufficed; conviction for unlawful restraint of a minor affirmed |
| Admissibility of forensic interview as prior consistent statement (Pa.R.E. 613) | Interview admissible to rehabilitate victim after defense impeached her and to rebut fabrication/memory attacks; also relied on precedent allowing such evidence for child victims | Admission was improper: Rule 613 limits prior consistent statements to rebut specific impeachment and not for pure corroboration; trial court improperly admitted entire videotape | Trial court abused discretion admitting tape for corroboration and beyond proper scope; error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the video was cumulative of trial testimony |
| Challenge to mandatory life sentences under 42 Pa.C.S. §9718.2 (Alleyne challenge) | Appellant: mandatory life enhanced by facts not found by jury; Alleyne requires any fact increasing penalty be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt | Commonwealth: prior convictions are an exception to Alleyne (Almendarez–Torres line); prior-conviction based enhancements do not implicate Alleyne | Court rejected Alleyne challenge; mandatory life under §9718.2 based on prior convictions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 102 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Super. 2014) (lesser-included analysis; vacate higher grading when an element of charged gradation not proved and remand to sentence for lesser-included grade)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 552 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1988) (prior consistent statements sometimes admissible for child-victim corroboration; discussed relevance/prejudice balance)
- Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prior consistent statements admissible when they rebut impeachment; treated in context of Rule 613)
- Commonwealth v. Bond, A.3d -- (Pa. Super. 2018) (postdates briefs; clarifies that Rule 613 governs admissibility and limits Willis’s broader corroboration rationale)
- Commonwealth v. Schilling, 431 A.2d 1088 (Pa. Super. 1981) (unlawful restraint requires proof of actual danger of serious bodily injury; mere apparent ability to inflict harm may be insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 572 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 1990) (distinguished Schilling where inherently dangerous circumstances proved, e.g., use of a real shotgun)
- Commonwealth v. McBall, 463 A.2d 472 (Pa. Super. 1983) (victim forcibly grabbed, threatened, disrobed and raped; circumstances supported exposure to serious injury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (fact that increases mandatory penalty is an element that must be found by jury, with prior-conviction exception recognized in Almendarez–Torres)
- Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (prior convictions may be treated as sentencing factors and are an exception to jury-finding rules under Apprendi/Alleyne)