Com. v. Mason, K., 3127 EDA 2016

Appellee (Mason) and accomplices committed an armed home-invasion robbery; Mason was arrested the same day and confessed.
Mason rejected an earlier plea offer, litigated a suppression motion, then entered an open guilty plea on March 23, 2016; court deferred sentencing and ordered PSI and evaluations.
Court sentenced Mason May 17, 2016 to 40–120 months incarceration plus 10 years probation. A recorded jail call (May 18) later contained statements by Mason to his grandmother suggesting a court law clerk told him an "about three years" sentence if he pled.
The Commonwealth, relying principally on that recording, moved to vacate plea/sentence and for the trial judge’s recusal, alleging ex parte law-clerk communications that created an appearance of impropriety. The motion was denied; the court vacated and then reinstated the original sentence.
At a recusal hearing the judge credited defense counsel and the law clerk, found the jail-call equivocal and selectively interpreted by the prosecutor, and concluded no reasonable observer would question the judge’s impartiality. Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Trial Court/Defense Argument	Held
Whether alleged ex parte contact by the judge’s law clerk with defendant created an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal	The jail-call shows the law clerk told Mason he’d get “about three years” if he pled, which suggests the judge pre-decided sentence and concealed communications from the Commonwealth	Defense counsel and the law clerk denied any substantive direct communication; the jail-call is equivocal and selectively parsed; no evidence of bias or impropriety; judge’s sentencing materials and process were proper	Denial of recusal affirmed; Commonwealth failed to meet its burden to show an appearance of impropriety or abuse of discretion

Commonwealth v. White, 557 Pa. 408, 734 A.2d 374 (1999) (party seeking recusal bears burden to show judge abused discretion)
Commonwealth v. King, 576 Pa. 318, 839 A.2d 237 (2003) (motion for recusal is decided by the challenged jurist; abuse-of-discretion standard)
Commonwealth v. Druce, 796 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appearance-of-impropriety standard can warrant recusal even without proof of actual bias)
Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (defendant entitled to sentencing by judge whose impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned)
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (2005) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are generally waived)