Com. v. McCluskey, R.
1518 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 25, 2016Background
- On Jan. 3, 2013 in a Walmart parking lot, Robert McCluskey confronted Joseph Hoyak after Hoyak shouted at McCluskey for speeding.
- McCluskey hit Hoyak in the face with a walking cane, then stabbed him in the back of the leg with a concealed sword from inside the cane.
- Hoyak suffered severe injuries (femoral vein nicked, hemorrhagic shock, multiple surgeries, transfusion, lasting clot/weakness/pain).
- McCluskey was tried and, on May 11, 2015, convicted by a jury of possession of a prohibited offensive weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
- The trial court sentenced McCluskey to 16–60 months’ imprisonment on July 6, 2015; post-sentence motion for acquittal and motion to modify sentence were denied.
- On appeal, procedural defects in counsel’s filings (failure to timely file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement) prompted remand for such filings, but the Superior Court reached the merits rather than dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (McCluskey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault and possession of a prohibited weapon | Evidence (victim testimony, injuries, knife concealed in cane) supports convictions | Victim/family testimony was contradicted by McCluskey and neutral witnesses; alleged insufficiency/credibility issues | Affirmed: evidence was sufficient; credibility disputes go to weight of evidence and were waived when not raised properly |
| Challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence | Sentence within court’s discretion and supported by record | Sentence excessive / should be modified (discretionary challenge) | Denied as waived on appeal for failure to include required Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate briefs must materially conform to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure)
- Estate of Lakatosh, 656 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. 1995) (court may quash or dismiss appeal for substantial defects in appellant’s brief)
- Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight-of-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Mack, 850 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 2004) (weight-of-evidence challenges must be raised in trial court per Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 or are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to include a Rule 2119(f) statement waives discretionary-sentencing challenge)
- Holy Spirit Hosp. of the Sisters of Christian Charity v. [Name Redacted], 32 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (Court may choose less severe sanctions than dismissal for less substantial brief defects)