Com. v. Serrano, L.
3405 EDA 2014
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 15, 2016Background
- Victim Margaret Weber (77) was assaulted in her home on Sept. 28, 2013: the attacker gained entry by claiming car trouble, stayed ~45 minutes, then pepper‑sprayed, shoved, and struck Weber with a potted plant and two vases. Weber sustained head wounds (required staples) and a torn rotator cuff; money and jewelry were taken.
- Weber identified the attacker as a former Aaron Healthcare caregiver who had been terminated in 2011; she called 911 at the scene identifying the assailant as a healthcare worker.
- Detective Martinez showed Weber a single photograph of Serrano (the appellant) two days after the crime; Weber positively identified Serrano. Serrano was arrested Oct. 1, 2013 and found with pepper spray.
- A jury convicted Serrano of two counts of robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and theft. Sentencing merged counts to an aggregate term of 9 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- Post‑sentence motions were denied; Serrano appealed raising (1) insufficiency as to aggravated assault (attempt to cause serious bodily injury), (2) challenge to suppression of the out‑of‑court/in‑court identification based on a single photograph, and (3) claim that the sentence (including consecutive terms) was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Serrano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (attempt to cause serious bodily injury) | Evidence (pepper spray, repeated blows to head, prolonged attack, resulting injuries and need for staples/rehab) supports finding of substantial step and intent to cause serious bodily injury | Attack did not cause "serious bodily injury," so aggravated‑assault (attempt) not proven beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for attempt under §2702(a)(1) because conduct constituted a substantial step showing intent to cause serious bodily injury |
| Suppression challenge to one‑photo identification (out‑of‑court and in‑court ID) | One‑photo procedure was unduly suggestive and risked misidentification; federal/state precedent disfavors single‑photo confrontations | Victim was familiar with Serrano, saw and interacted with her for over an hour during the attack, reported caregiver identity to 911, and gave corroborating descriptive details; totality of circumstances made the ID reliable | Affirmed — under totality of circumstances the one‑photo showing did not require suppression; in‑court ID reliable |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence / consecutive terms excessive | Consecutive sentences at high end were excessive; court overemphasized victim age/injury and failed to weigh mitigating factors and rehabilitation | Court considered PSI, guidelines, victim impact, defendant’s history (drug escalation), and sentenced within advisory standard range; consecutive terms justified by distinct, violent acts | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences reasonable. Trial court’s "no contact" condition as a parole restriction vacated for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stanford, 863 A.2d 428 (Pa. 2004) (sufficiency reviewed on full record even if suppression issues pending)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency standard; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of attempt under §2702(a)(1): substantial step plus intent)
- Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2003) (factors for assessing reliability of identification; one‑on‑one ID not per se exclusionary)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 451 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 1982) (single‑photo ID may be suggestive but admissible under totality of circumstances)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (federal standard: reliability under the totality of the circumstances governs admissibility of identification)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (factors appellate courts must regard when reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (procedural prerequisites and scope for discretionary sentencing review)