Com. v. Merriweather, S.
3013 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- In 2002 D.D. was sexually assaulted in an abandoned Kensington warehouse; she reported the rape, submitted to a rape kit the same day, and later gave a statement to police.
- Police recovered a blue jumpsuit near the scene; years later CODIS led investigators to Merriweather, whose voluntary buccal swab matched sperm/DNA from the 2002 kit.
- Merriweather gave testimony denying rape, claiming prior paid sex with D.D. on several occasions; at trial D.D. identified Merriweather at an in-person lineup more than ten years after the crime.
- Merriweather waived a jury; the trial court convicted him of rape, IDSI, and related offenses and sentenced him to consecutive guideline terms totaling 165–330 months, plus a SVP designation.
- Merriweather did not file a direct appeal; he filed a pro se PCRA petition seeking reinstatement of direct appeal rights, which the court granted, and he appealed the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Commonwealth: DNA match, victim testimony, corroborating physical evidence supported convictions | Merriweather: victim unreliable (addict/prostitute), long delay, identification inconsistencies mean insufficient evidence | Court: Evidence sufficient; credibility challenges go to weight, not sufficiency; convictions affirmed |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: trier of fact ruled and was entitled to assess credibility | Merriweather: testimony of D.D. was incredible and unreliable | Court: Weight claim waived for failure to preserve at sentencing; not considered on appeal |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing (excessiveness) | Commonwealth: trial court considered mitigating/aggravating factors and imposed guideline consecutive terms appropriately | Merriweather: sentence excessive, court overemphasized public protection and ignored rehabilitation; cumulative sentence equals de facto life term | Court: Appellant raised a substantial question about rehabilitation consideration, but trial court adequately considered factors; sentencing discretion not abused |
| Procedural reinstatement of appellate rights | Commonwealth: PCRA court properly reinstated direct appeal rights | Merriweather: sought reinstatement to perfect appeal | Court: PCRA court granted relief; appeal proceeds to merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Britton, 134 A.3d 83 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (credibility challenges weigh on weight, not sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999) (sufficiency claims framed as weight claims fail)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (preservation requirement for weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discretionary aspects of sentencing review prerequisites)
- Commonwealth v. Diehl, 140 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2016) (what raises a substantial question on sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mere dissatisfaction with weighing of factors does not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive guideline sentences do not automatically present a substantial question)