Com. v. Johnson, J.
Com. v. Johnson, J. No. 601 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Victim Timothy Matthews was beaten and robbed outside his home after a domestic dispute; James Johnson (Appellant) and Damon Cephas assaulted him, stole $40, a cell phone, and a hat.
- Matthews identified Johnson at the scene and while in custody; Johnson was wearing the stolen hat at the time of identification.
- A jury convicted Johnson of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, theft, receiving stolen property, simple assault, and terroristic threats.
- Trial court initially sentenced Johnson to an aggregate 3 to 6 years; after a post-sentence reconsideration hearing the court increased the aggregate sentence to 4 to 8 years sua sponte.
- Appellant filed a late Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement (56 days after the court order). The trial court nonetheless addressed the issues in its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the court illegally increased the sentence sua sponte in the absence of a Commonwealth post-sentence motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions | Commonwealth: evidence (identification, possession of hat, testimony) supported convictions | Johnson: evidence was insufficient to support convictions | Waived — Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement failed to specify which elements were insufficiently supported, so insufficiency claim waived |
| Legality of increased sentence (court increased sentence sua sponte after post-sentence hearing) | Commonwealth: conceded court cannot increase sentence sua sponte without its own post-sentence motion | Johnson: court improperly increased sentence without a specific request from either party | Held for Johnson — sentence increase was illegal; judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lord v. Commonwealth, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement are not preserved)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discusses effect of untimely Rule 1925(b) statements and remand practice)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (untimely Rule 1925(b) filing waives appellate issues)
- Commonwealth v. Nickens, 923 A.2d 469 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sentencing court may not increase sentence absent Commonwealth post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Broadie, 489 A.2d 218 (Pa. Super. 1985) (court may not raise sentencing issues sua sponte without Commonwealth motion)
- Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014) (remedy for illegal sentence that alters the sentencing scheme is vacatur and remand for resentencing)