Com. v. Sistrunk, H.
2816 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- On May 26, 2010 two houses in Montgomery County, PA were burglarized; items worth over $30,000 total were reported missing. DNA on a water bottle and glove and cell‑phone records placed Sistrunk near the scenes; a car registered to a roommate was observed in the area.
- Sistrunk was tried; jury convicted him of two counts each of burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary, and one count of criminal trespass, but acquitted him of theft-related offenses (theft, receiving stolen property).
- Co‑defendant Michael Cannon entered an open guilty plea but absconded before sentencing; a bench warrant remains outstanding.
- At sentencing the court imposed prison terms and ordered joint-and-several restitution of $27,685.53 to victims for stolen property; victims testified about losses and impact.
- Sistrunk appealed arguing (inter alia) inconsistent verdicts, Batson error, selective/vindictive prosecution, improper consideration of victim impact, and that restitution was unlawful given the acquittals on theft counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Sistrunk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of burglary/conspiracy convictions despite acquittal on theft | Burglary conviction does not require proof of the specific underlying crime; evidence supported entry, intent inference and conspiracy. | Jury acquittal on theft-related counts means there was no proof of intended theft; convictions inconsistent and should be set aside. | Court affirmed convictions: inconsistent verdicts are permitted; sufficient evidence supported burglary/conspiracy. |
| 2. Batson challenge to prosecutor's peremptory strikes | Prosecution offered race-neutral, specific reasons (juror credibility/demeanor, lack of confidence after rehabilitation). | Strikes targeted the only African‑American venirepersons; proffered reasons were vague, demeanor‑based and pretextual. | Court denied Batson challenge: trial court credited prosecutor's race-neutral explanations and credibility determinations. |
| 3. Selective/vindictive prosecution based on trial choice/sentencing disparity with co‑defendant | N/A (Commonwealth prosecuted both defendants and sought appropriate sentences). | Prosecution treated Sistrunk more harshly because he exercised right to jury trial; disparate sentencing advocacy and victim statements demonstrate vindictiveness/selective prosecution. | Claim rejected: no record support of selective or vindictive prosecution; Cannon was prosecuted and absconded before sentencing; allegations speculative. |
| 4. Consideration of victim impact and theft losses at sentencing | Victim impact testimony on harm from burglaries is relevant to sentencing and allowed by statute. | Considering theft losses contradicts jury's acquittal on theft counts and improperly influenced sentencing. | Trial court properly considered victim impact; discretionary‑sentencing challenge waived for appellant's failure to comply with Rule 2119(f). |
| 5. Restitution order for stolen property after acquittal on theft counts | Restitution permissible where losses flow from the conduct underlying the crimes of conviction (burglary/conspiracy), supported by victims' proof. | Restitution is a sentence that must be causally tied to conduct for which defendant was held criminally accountable; acquittal on theft means no causal nexus, so restitution is illegal. | Restitution vacated: court agreed no causal connection shown between convictions and theft losses given jury's acquittals, so restitution order was illegal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prosecutor must provide race‑neutral explanation for peremptory strike)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 886 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2005) (burglary conviction may stand despite acquittal on underlying crime)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (trial court credibility assessments in Batson context given deference)
- Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2012) (restitution is part of sentence; legality review de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Barger, 956 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 2008) (restitution requires direct nexus to the crime of conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 466 A.2d 195 (Pa. Super. 1983) (defendant accountable for restitution only for losses flowing from conduct forming basis of conviction)