Com. v. Pearce, J., III
Com. v. Pearce, J., III No. 773 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- Appellant John Carl Pearce III pled guilty (no plea agreement) to carrying a firearm without a license; sentencing set after a presentence investigation (PSI).
- PSI assigned a prior record score of 2: one point for two ungraded misdemeanors and one point for a juvenile adjudication for possession of a weapon on school property.
- At sentencing Appellant questioned whether the juvenile adjudication should count because the item was a lighter with a cigar cutter, but conceded the PSI’s accuracy and that it would ‘‘render one point.’’
- The trial court offered a one-week continuance to investigate the juvenile matter; Appellant elected to proceed immediately and was sentenced to 24–48 months (bottom of guideline range).
- Appellant failed to timely file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; this Court later found counsel’s omission constituted per se ineffectiveness and remanded to allow a nunc pro tunc 1925(b) filing.
- On remand Appellant challenged the calculation of his prior record score, arguing the juvenile adjudication was improperly counted; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by including the juvenile adjudication in Appellant’s prior record score | The juvenile adjudication should not count because the ‘‘weapon’’ was actually a lighter with a cigar cutter, not a knife | The PSI was accurate; Appellant conceded the adjudication’s validity at sentencing and declined the offered continuance to litigate it | Court held no abuse of discretion: Appellant conceded the PSI and chose to proceed; trial court permissibly relied on the PSI and prior record score |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 758 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing analysis framework)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (explaining appealability of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2003) (improper consideration of prior convictions raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Charles, 488 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Super. 1985) (defendant bears burden to allege invalid prior convictions; court may require Commonwealth to prove validity if allegations have merit)