Com. v. Mojica-Carrion, L.
Com. v. Mojica-Carrion, L. No. 1197 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- On Sept. 20, 2013, co-defendant/witness Estiben Manso testified he accompanied Leonardo Mojica‑Carrion after Mojica‑Carrion said he had a gun and wanted money; Mojica‑Carrion approached a man exiting a bar and shot him as he fled.
- Murder weapon was recovered in Mojica‑Carrion’s pantry; surveillance footage corroborated parts of Manso’s account.
- A jury convicted Mojica‑Carrion of first‑degree murder, aggravated assault, robbery, firearms offense, and three counts of conspiracy.
- Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder plus consecutive terms totaling 14½–47 years.
- Mojica‑Carrion’s initial appeal was quashed as untimely; his PCRA petition led to reinstatement nunc pro tunc, he filed post‑sentence motions (denied), and then appealed.
- On appeal he raised (1) a weight‑of‑the‑evidence challenge focused on Manso’s credibility and (2) a challenge to the discretionary imposition of consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence based on eyewitness credibility | Commonwealth: evidence (surveillance, weapon recovery) supports verdict; credibility for jury to decide | Mojica‑Carrion: Manso was an admitted liar, had motives (preferential treatment), and his testimony was unreliable | Court affirmed denial of post‑sentence motion; jury credibility determination stands and denial was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether consecutive sentences (including life plus additional terms) were an abuse of discretion | Commonwealth: sentencing court acted within discretion considering gravity, need to protect public, lack of remorse, and corroborating evidence | Mojica‑Carrion: no prior record, young, consecutive sentences producing de facto life beyond life sentence are excessive | Court found a substantial question was raised but ultimately affirmed sentencing; no abuse of discretion given circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive v. concurrent sentences ordinarily do not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (extreme circumstances required to find consecutive sentences create unduly harsh aggregate)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinguishing bald excessiveness claims from particularized challenges to consecutive sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing vested in court’s discretion; abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 661 A.2d 1367 (Pa. 1995) (court’s discretion to order sentences concurrent or consecutive)
- Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 835 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. 2003) (finder of fact determines witness credibility; appellate courts defer)
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 867 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for abuse of discretion review on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 799 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2002) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 679 A.2d 779 (Pa. Super. 1996) (weight claim requires verdict so contrary to evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice)