Com. v. Soto, L.
Com. v. Soto, L. No. 61 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- On April 9, 2013, Luis M. Soto drew a firearm and fired into a crowd in Philadelphia; one person (Amanda Martinez) was killed and three others were seriously wounded. Seven .40 caliber casings and bullets recovered were all fired from the same firearm.
- Soto was charged with third-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia, possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), and three counts of aggravated assault — causing serious bodily injury.
- A jury convicted Soto on August 31, 2015; on December 4, 2015 the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 50 to 100 years’ imprisonment.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous; Soto did not file a pro se brief or retain new counsel.
- The Superior Court reviewed the Anders brief, addressed multiple trial evidence and procedure claims (mistrial, admission of social-media/text evidence, 9-1-1 hearsay), declined to reach ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal (dismissing them without prejudice), and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Soto) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion for mistrial after witness referenced defendant’s background/dangerousness | Trial court erred in denying mistrial because witness’s remark revealed criminal history and prejudiced jury | Remark was not elicited by Commonwealth, curative instruction given, and Commonwealth did not exploit it | Denied — no abuse of discretion; curative instruction sufficient |
| 2. Admission and prosecutor’s use of Instagram/text post implying threat | Admission/argument about social-media post created unfair prejudice and suggested intimidation not supported by evidence | No contemporaneous defense objection at trial (waived); courtroom closure request handled; reading into record permitted | Waived on appeal for lack of contemporaneous objection; no relief |
| 3. Detective’s testimony about 9-1-1 caller identifying shooter/vehicle (hearsay) | Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded | Trial court sustained objection, struck testimony, and admonished jury; statement was non-hearsay if used to explain police conduct | Claim lacks merit — testimony was excluded and mistrial not warranted |
| 4. Weight and sufficiency of evidence for third-degree murder and aggravated assault | Convictions against weight/insufficient because identifications were unreliable and witnesses inconsistent | Jury saw and heard witnesses; malice and serious bodily injury established by evidence (shooting into crowd, wounds) | Waived (not raised in Rule 1925(b)); merits would fail — evidence sufficient and weight challenge without merit |
| 5. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple bases) | Trial counsel failed in cross-examination, repeated inculpatory evidence, disrespectful conduct, failed to file post-sentence motions | Ineffectiveness claims should be deferred to collateral review under PCRA/Grant; no circumstances justify addressing them on direct appeal | Dismissed without prejudice to collateral review (PCRA) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s duty to file brief asserting frivolousness when seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania standard for Anders-type briefs on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to post-conviction collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (mistrial and curative-instruction analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (out-of-court statements admissible when not offered for truth but to explain police course of conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406 (Pa. 2008) (failure to raise contemporaneous objection to prosecutor’s closing argument results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standards for reviewing weight of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 1995) (malice for third-degree murder may be inferred from use of deadly weapon on a vital part of the body)