Com. v. Smith, J.
Com. v. Smith, J. No. 1031 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- James Wallace Smith was arrested in March 2014 on multiple charges including robbery (serious bodily injury), burglary, aggravated assault, and several firearms offenses; two charges were later withdrawn.
- Multiple public defenders handled Smith’s case; a June 2014 behavioral assessment said he was marginally competent and required explanations “carefully, slowly, and repeatedly,” but a November 2014 report found him competent to stand trial.
- On February 9, 2015, with substitute counsel present (assigned counsel unavailable), Smith pleaded guilty to eight counts; the trial court denied a continuance request to postpone the plea.
- On May 4, 2015, the court imposed consecutive terms totaling 7 to 14 years’ imprisonment (primarily for robbery and firearms offenses); Smith’s post-sentence motion was denied.
- Smith timely appealed, raising (1) that the court abused its discretion by denying the continuance given his low IQ and counsel unavailability, and (2) that the sentence was excessive and failed to account for statutory sentencing factors and his cognitive deficits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying continuance on plea day | Smith: substitute counsel unavailable; IQ ~57 and psychiatrist recommended slow, repeated explanations; needed time for assigned counsel to prepare | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: contemporaneous competency finding, substitute counsel prepared Smith; Smith affirmed understanding and satisfaction at plea colloquy; no miscarriage of justice | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; interests of justice did not require continuance |
| Whether sentence was excessive and court failed to consider 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) factors | Smith: court ignored statutory sentencing factors, overemphasized seriousness, failed to account for diminished cognition and manipulability | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: court considered gravity, public protection, rehabilitative needs, Smith’s mental history, and witness testimony; juvenile record admissible for sentencing | No abuse of discretion; sentence supported by record and statutory considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAleer, 748 A.2d 670 (Pa. 2000) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary aspects of sentencing are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (four-part test to reach merits of discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (defining when a substantial question is presented on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 460 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 1983) (sentencing court must consider Sentencing Code principles)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 614 A.2d 663 (Pa. 1992) (juvenile adjudications may be considered in adult sentencing)