Com. v. Rutledge, D.
2038 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- In 2008 Rutledge was charged after police found a loaded 9mm handgun and marijuana at his residence; he was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm (2nd-degree felony) after a 2009 bench trial.
- He received a sentence of time served to 23 months plus five years probation in 2010, was repeatedly noncompliant with probation (failed drug tests, skipped court), and had multiple bench warrants/detainers.
- In April 2011 Rutledge was accused of stabbing his partner, Lashakeen Spears; those criminal charges were nol-prossed in April 2012 but the court revoked probation and on June 1, 2012 sentenced him to time served to 23 months and ordered no contact with Spears.
- On June 12, 2012 police responded to Spears’ apartment; officers testified Spears was hysterical, screamed for help, and said Rutledge held a knife to her; Rutledge was arrested and charged with new offenses, and the trial court revoked parole and probation at a July 2012 VOP hearing.
- At the September 18, 2012 VOP sentencing hearing the court imposed a 5–10 year state sentence (statutory maximum for the firearm conviction) citing repeated violations, risk to victim/public safety, and Rutledge’s continued contact with Spears despite explicit court orders.
- Rutledge did not timely appeal; he filed a PCRA petition seeking reinstatement of post-sentence rights nunc pro tunc. The PCRA court reinstated direct appeal rights; appellate court reviews (1) admissibility of Spears’ statements and (2) sentencing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Spears’ statements to police | Commonwealth: statements were admissible as excited utterances and exclamations | Rutledge: statements were hearsay, not excited utterances (time to reflect) | Court: admissible — screams were non-hearsay exclamations; knife statement was an excited utterance under Pa.R.E.803(2) |
| Right to file post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc | Commonwealth: sentence appeal is untimely/waived absent post-sentence motion; PCRA relief limited | Rutledge: PCRA counsel ineffective; should be allowed to file post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc to challenge discretionary sentence | Court: PCRA reinstated appeal rights but not post-sentence motion; regardless, even if motions reinstated, sentencing claim lacks merit — no relief warranted |
| Discretionary aspects/abuse of discretion of 5–10 year sentence | Rutledge: court failed to consider age, medical conditions, rehabilitative needs, and relied on arrests without convictions | Commonwealth/Trial court: sentence justified by repeated violations, violence toward Spears, public safety concerns | Court: no abuse of discretion — judge considered statutory factors, public safety, history of noncompliance, and permissibly considered arrests; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McFadden, 156 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and balancing relevance/probative value)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2013) (timing/ spontaneity requirement for excited-utterance exception)
- Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Super. 2017) (requirements to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (deference to sentencing court on revocation where reasons are stated on record)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard for abuse of discretion in revocation sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Bowers, 25 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may consider unadjudicated arrests in sentencing if not treated as convictions)