Com. v. Mc Nair, A.
1570 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 2, 2017Background
- On November 5, 2014, victim Jason Collins was robbed at gunpoint near 55th and Girard in Philadelphia; two men took his Samsung phone (with a distinct Punisher-case) and white Soul headphones.
- Victim chased the getaway vehicle (blue Crown Victoria) and flagged down police; officers stopped the vehicle within about one mile and found McNair and co-defendant Keon Davis in the backseat and recovered the phone case and headphones.
- The victim immediately identified McNair and Davis at the scene and later gave a written statement and met with detectives; at trial the victim could not make an in-court identification but had identified items and given earlier identifications.
- At trial the jury convicted McNair of armed robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii)) but acquitted him of conspiracy and possession of an instrument of crime; McNair was sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment.
- McNair appealed, arguing (1) evidence was insufficient to sustain the robbery conviction and (2) the 10–20 year sentence was excessive/abusive and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because it triggered a consecutive parole-violation term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (McNair) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support robbery conviction | The identification at scene, recovered stolen items in the car (Punisher case, white headphones), flight in vehicle, and victim’s out-of-court statements support conviction | Victim could not identify in court; co-defendant testified McNair was not involved; acquittal on related charges undermines robbery verdict | Affirmed: in‑court uncertainty goes to weight; immediate out‑of‑court ID plus circumstantial evidence sufficed beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether sentencing court considered relevant factors | Court reviewed PSI and mental health eval, heard argument, and considered guidelines, crime gravity, and defendant’s background | Sentence imposed without adequate reasons or consideration of factors | Affirmed: record shows court considered permissible factors and placed reasons on record |
| Whether sentence was manifestly excessive | Sentence was within court’s discretion given crime seriousness, impact, prior record (fourth robbery), and public protection interests | 10–20 years is excessive and disproportionate | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion or manifest excessiveness |
| Cruel and unusual (consecutive parole‑violation exposure) | Multiple sentences and consecutive VOP term do not make punishment cruel and unusual; defendant not entitled to a "volume discount" | Triggering a consecutive VOP sentence produced cruel and unusual punishment | Held: claim waived in part (not preserved below); in any event, sentence does not shock standards of decency and is not cruel and unusual |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (out‑of‑court identifications given shortly after the crime can support conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Costa‑Hernandez, 802 A.2d 671 (Pa. 2002) (evidentiary sufficiency review; factfinder resolves identification weight)
- Commonwealth v. Tate, 401 A.2d 353 (Pa. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (procedural requirements for discretionary‑aspects‑of‑sentencing review)