Com. v. Ortiz, A.
Com. v. Ortiz, A. No. 1590 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- On Nov. 14, 2014 three uniformed Reading police officers (Sergeant Liggett, Officer Federico, Officer Neimsyk) pursued Alan Ortiz after he ran from them and failed to produce ID.
- While fleeing, Ortiz discharged a revolver once in the officers’ direction; no one was killed but officers continued pursuit and returned fire until Ortiz was captured.
- Ortiz was tried by jury (July 18–21, 2016) and convicted of three counts each of: assault of a law enforcement officer (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702.1(a)), aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(2)), aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(4)), and one count each of PIC and recklessly endangering another.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 60 to 120 years (including mandatory 20-year terms under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9719.1(a)), running consecutive; post-sentence motion denied.
- Ortiz appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to convict three separate officers based on one shot and (2) sentence manifestly excessive / court failed to consider rehabilitative needs.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Ortiz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for multiple counts of assault on officers (§ 2702.1) | Single act (discharging firearm at pursuing uniformed officers) plus knowledge they were officers constitutes attempted/intentional assault on each officer; separate offenses may arise from one act | Single gunshot cannot establish specific intent to harm three different officers; insufficient as a matter of law | Affirmed: one act may support separate convictions for each victim under § 2702.1; evidence sufficient to show attempt/intent toward each officer |
| Sufficiency for multiple aggravated assault convictions (§ 2702(a)(2) and (a)(4)) | Discharging a firearm at officers is an attempt to cause serious bodily injury and uses a deadly weapon; statute protects individual victims so multiple convictions are proper | One shot cannot sustain multiple aggravated-assault convictions absent distinct injuries | Affirmed: statutes construed to protect individual victims; one act can produce multiple offenses against multiple officers |
| Sentencing — claimed failure to consider rehabilitative needs and manifest excessiveness of consecutive sentences | Sentencing court considered PSI, defendant’s criminal history, danger to society, victim impact; mandatory minimum statutes constrained alternatives; discretionary decision to run sentences consecutively was reasoned | Sentence (60–120 years; effectively life) is manifestly unreasonable for a single act that caused no physical injury; court failed to weigh rehabilitation | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Court considered relevant factors and mandatory minimums applied. Consecutive sentences permissible and not unduly harsh here |
| Procedural preservation of discretionary-sentencing claim | N/A | Claim properly preserved in post-sentence motion and brief (Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)) | N/A — court proceeded and found the claim presented a substantial question and reviewed merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Frisbie, 485 A.2d 1098 (Pa. 1984) (single act affecting multiple victims may support separate offenses when statute’s language contemplates individual victims)
- Commonwealth v. Yates, 562 A.2d 908 (Pa. Super. 1989) (applied Frisbie: no "two for one discount" when one indiscriminate act injures or endangers multiple people)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 48 A.3d 432 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements required under § 2702.1 and that attempt can be proved without actual bodily injury)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)