Com. v. Shabazz, K.
868 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- On October 2-3, 2012, Khalil G. Walker Shabazz shot and killed Jerry Edwards after an argument; Edwards’s body was found in his mother’s Dodge Stratus. Shabazz was charged with third-degree murder and related firearm offenses.
- Evidence included eyewitness testimony about seeing Shabazz running from the scene, discovery of the Ford title where a witness saw him running, and testimony that Shabazz owned a .40 caliber handgun.
- Detective Ronald Dove had been terminated and criminally implicated in an unrelated matter; Shabazz sought Dove’s personnel/disciplinary files pretrial. Dove had limited involvement in this case (two search warrants prepared/executed and present during two witness statements), and the Commonwealth did not call him at trial.
- Shabazz waived a jury, was convicted by the trial court of third-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm on public streets, and was sentenced to an aggregate 23½ to 47 years’ imprisonment plus 10 years’ probation.
- Shabazz appealed, arguing (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying discovery of Dove’s personnel files, and (2) the sentence was an abuse of discretion for failing to consider rehabilitation and for exceeding sentencing guidelines without stated reasons. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Shabazz's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying pretrial discovery of Detective Dove’s personnel/internal affairs files | Files would contain evidence of Dove’s dishonesty in other homicide cases and be material for impeachment/exculpation | Shabazz failed to show a specific, articulable, reasonable basis tying Dove’s alleged misconduct to this case; Dove had limited involvement and was not a trial witness | Denial affirmed—Shabazz did not meet Rule 573(B)(2)(a) burden to show materials were material, reasonable, and in interests of justice |
| Whether sentence ignored rehabilitative needs (discretionary aspects) | Sentencing court failed to consider Shabazz’s potential for rehabilitation and community support | Trial court considered PSI, letters, testimony, and appellant’s mitigation; sentencing court need not use any talismanic language, and record shows consideration of factors | No abuse of discretion—record reflects consideration of rehabilitation and mitigation |
| Whether court failed to state reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines on firearms offense | The sentence for carrying a firearm without a license exceeded the guidelines without articulated reasons | Trial court gave contemporaneous reasons on the record, noting the heinous, unprovoked nature of the killing and that appellant received mercy by conviction for third-degree murder instead of first-degree | No abuse—court provided contemporaneous statement justifying guideline departure and weighed factors appropriately |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 72 A.3d 681 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defendant bears burden to show requested discovery material and reasonable under Rule 573)
- Commonwealth v. Mejia-Arias, 734 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 1999) (personnel file inspection warranted when evidence shows officers may have lied in search warrant applications)
- Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 162 A.3d 1140 (Pa. Super. 2017) (sentencing court may deviate from guidelines to account for public protection, rehabilitation, and offense gravity)
- Commonwealth v. Shull, 148 A.3d 820 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sentencing court must state contemporaneous reasons on the record for sentences outside guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (when court has PSI, appellate courts presume sentencing judge considered relevant defendant information)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing: abuse of discretion required for reversal)