Com. v. Min, J.
Com. v. Min, J. No. 29 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 12, 2017Background
- Joseph Min was convicted by a jury (Jan. 2014) of multiple sexual offenses for a sexual relationship with a girl who was 14–15 when the acts occurred; he received an aggregate sentence of 25–55 years and was classified as an SVP.
- New counsel filed a timely PCRA petition (May 2015) arguing among other things that the sentence was illegal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2(b) (max > 2x min) and asserting several ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims.
- At a PCRA hearing the trial court resentenced Min to 25–50 years but denied other PCRA relief; Min appealed.
- IAC claims challenged: (1) failure to request limiting instruction for third‑party testimony (Padjune) about victim statements; (2) failure to exclude testimony by Justin Smith as irrelevant; (3) eliciting/allowing evidence of defendant's prior drug use without limiting instruction; (4) admitting photographs of defendant's genitalia; and (5) failure to file post‑sentence motion challenging discretionary aspects of sentencing.
- The court rejected the IAC claims on the merits (finding reasonable trial strategy and/or lack of arguable merit), but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the mandatory 25‑year minimum under § 9718.2 implicated Alleyne/Apprendi concerns and could not be applied as imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Min) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Limiting instruction for Padjune hearsay | Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting limiting instruction that Padjune's testimony was admissible only as prior consistent statements, not substantive evidence | Court: Padjune's testimony included admissions/statements by defendant and eyewitness presence; no record that testimony was admitted solely under Rule 613(c) so no limiting instruction was required | Denied—no arguable merit to IAC claim |
| 2. Relevance of Justin Smith testimony | Trial counsel ineffective for not excluding Smith's testimony as irrelevant (post‑age‑16 conduct) | Commonwealth: testimony showed pre‑existing romantic relationship and bore on credibility; also relevant to corruption of minors count | Denied—testimony relevant and admissible |
| 3. Evidence of drug use | Trial counsel ineffective for eliciting/allowing drug‑use evidence (other‑crimes, prejudicial) | Counsel: drug use formed part of the chain/"complete story" explaining how defendant met victim's family; admissible on that basis | Denied—admissible as part of natural development of events |
| 4. Admission of genitalia photographs | Trial counsel ineffective for introducing inflammatory photos; counsel should have excluded them | Trial counsel testified defendant insisted; photos were used to impeach victim's denial of any distinguishing mark; strategic choice after consultation | Denied—defendant made a knowing choice and strategy was reasonable |
| 5. Failure to file post‑sentence motion re: discretionary sentencing | Trial counsel ineffective for not challenging excessive/discretionary aspects of sentence | Commonwealth: sentence reflected mandatory minimum under § 9718.2; counsel could not effectively challenge discretionary aspects while mandatory scheme applied | Partially granted on separate ground: sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing because mandatory minimum under § 9718.2 implicated Alleyne concerns (sentence legality), requiring resentencing without application of that mandatory minimum |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (prior consistent statement admissible only for rehabilitation, not as substantive evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (defendant cannot later claim counsel ineffective for an informed, voluntary tactical choice)
- Commonwealth v. Molina, 897 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2006) (other‑acts evidence admissible as part of "complete story")
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014) (§ 9718 facially void in light of Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Pennybaker, 121 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2015) (statutory discussion on mandatory sentencing/enhancements and Apprendi/Almendarez‑Torres principles)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (narrow exception: fact of prior conviction need not be found by jury)