Com. v. Preziosi, D.
443 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2016Background
- On Oct. 18, 2013 Wunderler’s Market was robbed at gunpoint; store surveillance captured the actor and victims provided a description. A witness (Michael Flyte) reported a distinctive beige Toyota Camry with front-end damage and a heart-shaped zebra sticker; he identified the still photo from the store video.
- Police located the described Camry the next night, surveilled it, observed appellant (Preziosi) approach and enter the car, arrested him, and found cash on his person; a subsequent search of the impounded vehicle pursuant to a warrant produced a gun matching the video description.
- Preziosi fled custody during transport to a preliminary hearing on Dec. 18, 2013; he was later charged with escape. The Commonwealth consolidated the robbery and escape matters for trial.
- Following denial of suppression (probable cause to arrest and for the vehicle search), a jury convicted Preziosi of robbery, two counts of simple assault, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property (First Case), and escape (Second Case).
- Sentenced to 90–240 months for robbery (including a 60-month mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712) and 27–84 months consecutive for escape (aggregate 117–324 months). On appeal the Superior Court affirmed convictions, vacated the robbery sentence under Section 9712, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Preziosi's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of suppression of cash and gun (warrantless arrest; search warrant for vehicle) | Probable cause was "overwhelming": video stills, victims’ descriptions, independent witness identification, surveillance placing Preziosi at the car justified arrest and the subsequent warrant for the car | Arrest lacked probable cause; evidence seized was fruit of illegal arrest/search and should be suppressed | Denial of suppression affirmed: factual findings supported; probable cause to arrest and to obtain vehicle warrant upheld |
| Consolidation of robbery and escape cases | Joinder proper because offenses were interrelated; escape evidence admissible to show consciousness of guilt; evidence of each would be admissible in separate trials | Consolidation was improper and prejudicial | Consolidation affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; joinder not unduly prejudicial |
| Admission of in‑court identification (after pretrial photo lineup) | Witnesses had an independent basis for in‑court ID (close, unmasked observation, contemporaneous video, no discrepancies) | In‑court ID tainted by pretrial uncounseled photo lineup | Admission upheld: Commonwealth demonstrated independent basis for in‑court identification |
| Use of flight/escape as consciousness‑of‑guilt evidence / Rule 404(b) concerns | Escape evidence admissible to show consciousness of guilt; 404(b) notice was withdrawn and consolidation allowed direct presentation of escape facts | Flight evidence was irrelevant or improperly admitted as bad‑acts evidence | Use of escape/flight evidence permitted; not barred by Rule 404(b) given consolidation and allowable inferences of consciousness of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 116 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression denial)
- In the Interest of L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (scope of review limited to suppression hearing record)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Section 9712 mandatory minimum found unconstitutional)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (statutory mandatory minimum struck down as unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 476 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Super. 1984) (test for independent basis of in‑court identification)
- Commonwealth v. Peppers, 515 A.2d 971 (Pa. Super. 1986) (standard for consolidation/joinder)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 955 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2008) (flight admissible as consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Rios, 684 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 1996) (jury may infer fugitive awareness from circumstances of flight)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (admission of flight/concealment as consciousness of guilt)