Com. v. McCaskill, B.
Com. v. McCaskill, B. No. 1246 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- On Oct. 23, 2014, Rite Aid staff discovered multiple boxes of condoms and three reusable Halloween bags missing; store surveillance showed an African‑American man carrying full bags out of the store.
- Store manager Howell and pharmacy tech Warren identified appellant Bryant McCaskill from the store and from the surveillance video; Warren also testified McCaskill presented a PA driver’s license at the pharmacy that day.
- A jury convicted McCaskill of retail theft and receiving stolen property; trial counsel was the public defender.
- McCaskill failed to appear for the original sentencing date, a bench warrant issued, he was arrested months later, and sentenced Jan. 20, 2016 to 21–48 months’ imprisonment.
- Post‑sentence, McCaskill raised many claims (insufficiency, Brady/suppressed video, suggestive ID, Batson challenge, ineffective assistance, sentencing errors, time‑credit). The trial court denied post‑sentence relief; McCaskill was later allowed to proceed pro se on appeal.
- The Superior Court affirmed convictions, found most appellate claims waived or preserved for collateral review, and remanded for a hearing on McCaskill’s claim for credit for time served.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | McCaskill's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / weight of the evidence that McCaskill committed the theft | Evidence (identifications, inventory records, surveillance video) was sufficient to show McCaskill committed the theft | Video and witness testimony only show mere presence; appellant walks with a limp and was misidentified | Convictions affirmed; challenge was essentially a weight/credibility attack and did not show insufficiency or that verdict shocked conscience |
| Alleged suppression/non‑presentation of full surveillance video (Brady/prosecutorial misconduct) | No contemporaneous objection at trial; issue waived on appeal | Commonwealth refused to play the entire multi‑hour footage and suppressed exculpatory portions | Waived for failure to object below; not considered on appeal |
| Suggestive pretrial identification / police ID reliability | Officer and witnesses identified appellant from video and in court; no preserved, developed legal challenge | Pretrial identification was unduly suggestive and likely caused misidentification | Waived or forfeited for failure to develop legal argument; not addressed on merits |
| Batson / race‑based peremptory strikes | Prosecutor gave race‑neutral reason (juror admitted less likely to believe police); court found reason facially valid | Prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove African‑American jurors and excluded the jury racially | Court found prosecutor offered credible race‑neutral reason; Batson framework applied and trial court’s finding not clearly erroneous |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | (Commonwealth) Issues of counsel performance should be deferred | Counsel was ineffective, undermining trial fairness | Claim deferred to collateral review (PCRA) per Grant; not addressed on direct appeal |
| Sentencing: prior out‑of‑state convictions and time‑credit | Alleyne not implicated; prior convictions are not elements and may be used for sentencing; trial court awarded 14 days credit and invited motion if more credited time proved | Trial court illegally used sealed/old out‑of‑state convictions to enhance sentence and denied full credit for time served (claims Alleyne and credit errors) | Calculation of prior record score challenge treated as discretionary and largely unpreserved; Alleyne inapplicable; illegal‑sentence/time‑credit claim preserved for review — remanded for hearing on time credit and resentencing as needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thoeun Tha v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (failure to raise contemporaneous objection waives claim)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S.) (three‑step test for evaluating race‑based peremptory strikes)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa.) (discussing Batson framework and trial court deference)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa.) (ineffective assistance claims generally deferred to PCRA collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa.) (standard for reviewing weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standards for discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S.) (mandatory‑minimum facts must be found by a jury; prior convictions excluded from this rule)