Com. v. Manners, J.
3590 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- On October 4, 2014, Joshua Manners took Eugene Goeser’s car (without permission) after a wedding; while driving on Route 1 in PA he lost control and collided with Susan Cornett’s vehicle. Manners refused field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.
- Following a two-day bench trial Manners was convicted of DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1)), unauthorized use of an automobile (18 Pa.C.S. § 3928), and several summary traffic offenses.
- Sentenced August 25, 2015 to 1–6 months’ incarceration (work-release eligibility after 14 days) and 2 years’ probation; restitution ordered: $300.42 to Cornett, $5,000 to Blue Cross/Blue Shield, $9,627 to State Farm, $4,300 to Goeser.
- Manners filed post-sentence motions challenging evidence sufficiency (unauthorized use), sentencing (vindictiveness/impermissible factors; increase of minimum days for work release), and restitution; motions denied and he appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency of evidence, discretionary aspects of sentencing for abuse of discretion, and legality of restitution de novo where applicable, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Manners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for unauthorized use (reasonable belief of owner consent) | Evidence (owner testimony and circumstances) supports that Manners lacked a reasonable belief of consent | Manners argues he reasonably believed Goeser would have consented had he known | Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient; adopt trial court reasoning |
| Increase in minimum days (3 to 14) for work-release eligibility — vindictiveness | Sentence modification was within court discretion and not vindictive | Manners argues the increase was vindictive/penalized him for seeking bail/appeal | No abuse of discretion found; sentencing decision upheld |
| Use of impermissible sentencing factors (timing re: unrelated homicide; comments about college students’ embarrassment) | Court’s remarks did not reflect reliance on impermissible factors or bias affecting sentence | Manners contends court relied on improper considerations and embarrassment comments | No abuse of discretion; court did not rely on impermissible factors |
| Legality/sufficiency of restitution (Goeser $4,300; Blue Cross/Blue Shield $5,000) | Restitution amounts are supported by record and trial court findings | Manners argues amounts speculative and unsupported, violating due process | Restitution order held legal and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 658 A.2d 395 (Pa. Super. 1995) (order denying post-sentence motions finalizes judgment for appeal)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2000) (sufficiency review limitations—no reweighing of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 125 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural requirements for reviewing discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (recognizes improper-factor sentencing claim raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Redman, 864 A.2d 566 (Pa. Super. 2004) (restitution-record challenges relate to legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 986 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2009) (legal questions reviewed de novo)