Com. v. Howard, E.
Com. v. Howard, E. No. 1549 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- On Dec. 29, 2015, a masked man entered the Canton Restaurant in Uniontown, pointed an object wrapped in a handkerchief at the waitress (Victim), demanded money from the cash register, and fled with about $60. Victim testified she feared for her life and complied.
- Police recovered a soda can handled by the assailant and submitted it for latent fingerprint analysis; the lab matched the prints to appellant Emmanuel Howard.
- Howard testified he frequented the restaurant and denied committing the robbery.
- A jury convicted Howard of two counts of robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) & (v)), theft, receiving stolen property, and simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(3)).
- The trial court sentenced Howard to 7 to 20 years on one robbery count and no further penalty on the other convictions; post-sentence relief was denied and Howard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: robbery under §3701(a)(1)(ii) (threat/put in fear) | Victim feared imminent serious bodily injury when assailant pressed an object into her side and ordered money | No verbal threats, no weapon observed, victim merely complied; evidence insufficient to show threat or intent to place in fear | Evidence sufficient; pressing object into victim’s side and victim’s fear supports conviction |
| Sufficiency: robbery under §3701(a)(1)(v) (taking by force) | Physical menace/force shown by pressing object into victim’s side while taking register money | Argues money taken from register (not from person) so statute inapplicable | Conviction proper; slight force used to remove property from victim’s control satisfies statute |
| Sufficiency: simple assault §2701(a)(3) (attempt by physical menace) | Physical menace (object pressed into side) placed victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury | Asserts no verbal threats or visible firearm, so insufficient | Evidence sufficient; physical menace proved without verbal threats or visible firearm |
| Sufficiency: identity of perpetrator | Fingerprint match on soda can plus victim identification ties Howard to the robbery | Denies involvement; argues evidence circumstantial | Identity established by victim ID and forensic fingerprint evidence |
| Discretionary sentencing | N/A | Sentence excessive; evidence circumstantial, victim not injured, no violent prior record (despite repeat felon status), rehabilitative needs unmet | No substantial question raised; sentence within guidelines and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 831 A.2d 661 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pressing object into victim and demanding money supported robbery convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard and four-part test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Maneval, 688 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 1997) (omission of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) may be overlooked if Commonwealth does not object)
- Commonwealth v. Saranchak, 675 A.2d 268 (Pa. Super. 1996) (appellate consideration of sentencing issues when Rule 2119(f) omitted)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary aspects of sentencing not reviewable as of right)