Com. v. Linnen, P.
Com. v. Linnen, P. No. 614 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Parrish Linnen was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted homicide (18 Pa.C.S. § 901), two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count of conspiracy to commit homicide.
- Trial court imposed aggregate sentence of 25 to 50 years: two concurrent 15–30 year terms for attempted homicide and a consecutive 10–20 year term for conspiracy.
- At trial, a witness (Irvin Green) made an unsolicited remark that Linnen had previously been charged with criminal homicide; defense moved for mistrial.
- Linnen challenged the denial of the mistrial, and moved for judgment of acquittal on attempted homicide and conspiracy claims, arguing insufficiency (grounded largely in alleged witness-credibility problems).
- The Superior Court adopted the trial court’s reasoning rejecting Linnen’s mistrial and sufficiency arguments but concluded the sentence was illegal under 18 Pa.C.S. § 906 because the court sentenced Linnen for multiple inchoate crimes arising from the same conduct.
- Superior Court vacated the conspiracy sentence and remanded for resentencing because vacating that sentence would upset the trial court’s overall sentencing scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mistrial was required after witness’s remark about prior charge | Commonwealth: trial court cured any prejudice with instruction; remark not intentionally elicited by prosecution | Linnen: remark unfairly prejudiced jury and required mistrial | Court held no mistrial; remark was elicited by defense cross-examination and cautionary instruction was adequate |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted homicide convictions | Commonwealth: evidence supported attempt convictions (trial court summary adopted) | Linnen: victims’ testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, so evidence insufficient | Court held sufficiency challenge fails; credibility disputes are weight issues, not sufficiency |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Commonwealth: evidence supported conspiracy conviction | Linnen: same credibility-based attack as to conspiracy evidence | Court held conspiracy conviction supported; sufficiency claim rejected |
| Legality of sentencing under 18 Pa.C.S. § 906 (multiple inchoate offenses) | Commonwealth: sentencing valid as imposed | Linnen: did not raise on appeal, but sentence legality can be reviewed sua sponte | Court held sentencing illegal under § 906; vacated conspiracy sentence and remanded for resentencing because alteration would upset sentencing scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1997) (distinguishes challenges to credibility as weight, not sufficiency, claims)
- Commonwealth v. Cooke, 492 A.2d 63 (Pa. Super. 1985) (court may remand for resentencing or amend sentence when multiple inchoate crimes were punished)
- Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552 (Pa. Super. 2006) (if appellate disposition upsets overall sentencing scheme, remand for resentencing is required)
- Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 39 A.3d 977 (Pa. 2012) (violations of 18 Pa.C.S. § 906 implicate legality of sentence and may be reviewed sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality-of-sentence questions are nonwaivable and may be raised by the court)
- Commonwealth v. Grekis, 601 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 1992) (interpreting § 906 to bar multiple sentences for related inchoate offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Maguire, 452 A.2d 1047 (Pa. Super. 1982) (same)