Com. v. Robinson, J.
714 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- Joshua Wayne Robinson (defendant) was convicted by jury in 2012 of rape of a child, criminal attempt to commit rape of a child, and three counts of indecent assault involving his step-daughter; originally sentenced to 15–30 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; Alleyne decision later rendered the original mandatory minimum unconstitutional, leading to resentencing.
- Defendant filed a pro se PCRA petition; the PCRA court granted relief in part and ordered resentencing.
- At resentencing on February 16, 2016, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 180 to 360 months (15–30 years), with counts 1 and 2 consecutive and remaining counts concurrent.
- Defendant filed a post-sentence motion and timely appealed, arguing (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress an unrecorded confession and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences and failing to weigh rehabilitative needs.
- The Superior Court addressed only the discretionary sentencing claim (ineffective assistance claims are generally reserved for collateral PCRA review) and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA/resentencing court erred in denying relief for trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress an unrecorded confession | N/A (prosecution did not seek relief on this point) | Robinson argued counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress his unrecorded confession | Court held IAC claim improper on direct appeal; such claims are to be raised on collateral PCRA review, so it was not considered on this appeal |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences and failing to consider rehabilitative needs | N/A | Robinson argued sentences for counts 1 and 2 should run concurrently given his background, lack of prior record, prison programming, and rehabilitative prospects | Court held the trial court adequately considered mitigating factors and victim/community protection; consecutive sentences not an abuse of discretion and sentencing was within standard ranges |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective assistance claims deferred to PCRA collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial-question inquiry is case-specific)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claim that consecutive sentences and failure to consider rehabilitation presents a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (when PSI is considered, court is presumed aware of defendant’s character and mitigating factors)
- Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607 (Pa. 2012) (discussion regarding concurrences and opinion authorship)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (concern about broad discretion to impose consecutive sentences)