Com. v. King, M.
509 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- At ~4:00 a.m. on June 22, 2015, Misty King transported two men to J.C.’s Pool Hall; the men took two cash-drawer tills and $1,672 in cash/coins after a masked accomplice feigned a handgun.
- The men returned to King’s residence; police later recovered the register drawers in a dumpster outside her home. King attempted to flee and hid before being apprehended.
- King was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery (F1) and receiving stolen property (misdemeanor). A jury convicted her only of receiving stolen property.
- At sentencing the court calculated a prior-record score of 4 and offense gravity score of 3, yielding a standard range minimum of 3–14 months and aggravated-range minimum of 14–17 months.
- The court sentenced King to 17–36 months’ imprisonment (aggravated-range minimum) plus two years’ probation, citing her recent burglary conviction and evidence that she played an active role in bringing the perpetrators to the scene.
- King appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and improperly based on conduct/charges for which she was acquitted; the Commonwealth did not object to a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) omission in her brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was excessive/manifestly unreasonable given circumstances | King: Sentence was harsh and amounted to punishment for crimes of which she was acquitted | Commonwealth/Trial court: Sentence within discretion based on criminal history and her active role in the incident | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence supported by record |
| Whether trial court failed to state adequate reasons for imposing aggravated-range sentence | King: Court relied on acquitted conduct and did not articulate valid on-the-record reasons | Court: Cited prior burglary/recidivism and evidence she helped create a dangerous situation by driving/coordinating; court reviewed PSI | Affirmed — trial court articulated valid reasons (recidivism, involvement beyond passive receipt) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing requires consideration of offense circumstances and defendant’s character)
- Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2014) (four-factor test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2008) (articulated requirement that trial court state reasons for aggravated-range sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Smart, 564 A.2d 512 (Pa. Super. 1989) (trial court sentence reversed where appearance of punishment for acquitted charges created an impermissible “make-up” sentencing concern)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for demonstrating sentencing court abused its discretion)