Com. v. Linnen, P.
Com. v. Linnen, P. No. 614 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Parrish Linnen was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of attempted homicide, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count of conspiracy to commit homicide; the court imposed an aggregate term of 25 to 50 years (two concurrent 15–30 year terms for attempts, plus a consecutive 10–20 year term for conspiracy).
- During trial a witness (Irvin Green) made an unsolicited statement that Linnen had previously been charged with criminal homicide; defense moved for a mistrial.
- Linnen moved for judgments of acquittal challenging sufficiency of the evidence for attempted homicide and conspiracy; he primarily attacked witness credibility.
- The trial court (Judge Todd) denied the mistrial motion and the sufficiency challenges; the Superior Court adopted that reasoning on appeal.
- The Superior Court nonetheless vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because sentencing on both attempted homicide and the related conspiracy violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 906 (multiple inchoate offenses related to the same crime cannot be punished separately), making the conspiracy sentence illegal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mistrial was required after witness Green blurted that Linnen had been previously charged with criminal homicide | Commonwealth: trial judge’s cautionary instruction cured any prejudice; no intentional elicitation | Linnen: statement prejudiced jury and required mistrial; defense argued neither side intentionally elicited it | Denied — trial court did not err; Superior Court agreed that defense counsel had elicited the statement and that cautionary instruction was sufficient |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain attempted homicide convictions | Commonwealth: presented adequate evidence (victim testimony, corroboration) | Linnen: victim testimony inconsistent and unreliable; argued insufficiency | Denied — court found evidence sufficient; credibility attacks are weight, not sufficiency, issues |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction | Commonwealth: proof supported conspiracy conviction related to attempted homicides | Linnen: same credibility-based attack; argued insufficiency | Denied — court found sufficient evidence for conspiracy |
| Whether sentencing on both attempted homicide and conspiracy violated § 906 (legality of sentence) | Commonwealth: did not contest sentence on appeal | Linnen: did not raise this on appeal | Held for defendant (vacatur/remand): Superior Court concluded sentencing on both inchoate offenses violated § 906, vacated conspiracy sentence and remanded for resentencing to allow court to restructure overall sentence plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1997) (credibility challenges are weight, not sufficiency, issues)
- Commonwealth v. Cooke, 492 A.2d 63 (Pa. Super. 1985) (appellate courts may remand for resentencing or amend sentence when multiple inchoate convictions were imposed)
- Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552 (Pa. Super. 2006) (if appellate disposition upsets trial court’s overall sentencing scheme, remand is required)
- Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 39 A.3d 977 (Pa. 2012) (violation of § 906 implicates legality of sentence and is reviewable)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality-of-sentence issues may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Grekis, 601 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 1992) (interpretation of § 906 to bar multiple sentences for related inchoate offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Maguire, 452 A.2d 1047 (Pa. Super. 1982) (same)