Com. v. McClintic, J.
Com. v. McClintic, J. No. 2567 EDA 2009
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 18, 2017Background
- In June and July 2002 John McClintic committed two separate home invasions of an 85‑year‑old neighbor, robbing and assaulting her; the victim suffered physical injury and long‑term trauma and had to leave her home.
- McClintic had two prior violent convictions (1987 aggravated assault; 1996 robbery) qualifying him as a "three‑strikes" offender under Pennsylvania law as previously found by the PA Supreme Court.
- A jury convicted McClintic in January 2003 of robbery and burglary for both incidents; after multiple resentencings and appeals, the case returned to the trial court for resentencing in 2009.
- At the 2009 hearing McClintic largely remained silent; the court noted disciplinary infractions in prison, the severity of the offenses, lack of demonstrated remorse, and limited rehabilitative prospects.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 45 to 90 years (one third‑strike 25–50 year term plus consecutive and concurrent 10–20 year terms). McClintic appealed, raising four issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of third‑strike sentence | McClintic: cannot be subject to a third‑strike enhancement because he was never previously sentenced as a second‑strike offender | Commonwealth: McClintic’s third‑strike status was already determined by the PA Supreme Court and is law of the case | Denied — law of the case bars relitigation; PA Supreme Court already held him a three‑strikes offender (McClintic I) |
| Court treated silence as lack of remorse | McClintic: court impermissibly penalized his invocation of the right to remain silent at sentencing | Commonwealth: court relied on several permissible factors (victim trauma, criminal history, prison infractions) in addition to silence | Error in using silence as sole basis for lack of remorse, but harmless — other proper factors supported the sentence (following Bowen) |
| Failure to acknowledge deviation from Sentencing Guidelines | McClintic: court abused discretion by not recognizing it was sentencing outside the guidelines for non‑mandatory offenses | Commonwealth: court had previously considered the guidelines at earlier hearings and properly accounted for them | Denied — record shows court was aware and considered guidelines; its language was shorthand for having considered them |
| Excessiveness / consecutive sentences | McClintic: aggregate sentence excessive; consecutive terms unjustified | Commonwealth: offenses severe, victim severely harmed, defendant poorly suited for rehabilitation, court well‑positioned to assess | Denied — no abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences supported by record and sentencing court’s familiarity with case |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2009) (silence at sentencing may not be sole basis for finding lack of remorse)
- Commonwealth v. McClintic, 909 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2006) (PA Supreme Court holding McClintic a three‑strikes offender and remanding for resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Bethea, 379 A.2d 102 (Pa. 1977) (trial court may not penalize defendant for exercising constitutional rights)
- State v. Burgess, 943 A.2d 727 (N.H. 2008) (analysis of whether silence at sentencing may be considered lack of remorse)