Com. v. Mosley, D.
501 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 23, 2017Background:
- On Dec. 8, 2014 Reginald Glascoe was robbed at gunpoint; he later told police he could identify the robber and gave a general description (black male in black hoodie).
- Officer Ricci Pyle, on patrol, encountered Glascoe running, took him home, then returned to the area and observed two people; when he approached a woman a black male (Mosley) appeared.
- Mosley told Pyle he had been urinating in a backyard and volunteered that he "found the gun;" Pyle recovered a small revolver with two live cartridges and three empty chambers.
- Based on proximity to the scene, matching description, the firearm with missing rounds, and the nearby female linked to the location, Pyle detained Mosley; Glascoe was brought back and made a prompt, positive out-of-court identification.
- Mosley was tried by jury and convicted of robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm prohibited, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia; acquitted of attempted homicide. He received an aggregate sentence with mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 and appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Mosley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Suppression: legality of stop/search and admissibility of gun/statements | Stop/search lawful: initial encounter, lawful frisk/search incident to citation/arrest; statements voluntary and not Miranda-triggering | Stop/search lacked reasonable suspicion; statements coerced and Miranda warnings required | Court: Interaction was a mere encounter; Mosley volunteered urination and the gun; pat-down/search and questions for safety lawful; gun and statement admissible |
| 2. Identification: admissibility of one-on-one, out-of-court and in-court ID | Identification reliable: prompt ID, victim had good opportunity to view, certainty, short time lapse | One-on-one ID was unduly suggestive (handcuffed/near police car/same vicinity) and violated due process | Court: Not impermissibly suggestive; prompt ID and other reliability factors weigh for admissibility |
| 3. Mandatory minimum sentencing under §9714 (Alleyne challenge) | Mandatory minimum lawful because based on prior conviction exception to Alleyne | Mandatory minimum unconstitutional under Alleyne because judge-made findings increased penalty | Court: §9714 applied based on prior conviction; Alleyne does not invalidate mandatory minimums based on prior convictions |
| 4. Weight / sufficiency of evidence and Brady/impeachment issue | Commonwealth: victim credible despite minor inconsistencies; defense had access to impeachment material via Public Defender; no Brady violation | Verdict against weight/insufficient: victim inconsistent about location, lighting, clothing; Commonwealth failed to disclose victim's 2012 crimen falsi conviction for impeachment (Brady) | Court: Trial court reasonably found victim credible; inconsistencies did not shock conscience; Brady fails because defense had or could have uncovered witness's prior conviction with reasonable diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warning rule)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (due process framework for identification challenges)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory penalty is an element -> jury finding)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570 (Pa. Super. 2014) (analysis of suggestive out-of-court identifications and admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (§9714 and Alleyne discussion)