Com. v. Stark, D.
48 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Between Sept. 25 and Oct. 16, 2015, Dustin Stark traded a firearm belonging to his stepfather to Anthony Rossino for electronic devices. He was charged under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) (persons not to possess firearms).
- On Oct. 21, 2015, Ridgway officer John Gangloff obtained a written voluntary statement from Stark at the police station; Stark later produced specific items from his home matching the statement.
- Stark moved to suppress the written statement, claiming he was so intoxicated/under the influence on Oct. 21 that the statement was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. The suppression court held a hearing and denied the motion, finding Gangloff credible and Stark’s intoxication claim not supported.
- At trial the parties stipulated Stark was disqualified from possessing firearms; the jury heard Rossino and Gangloff; Stark did not testify. The jury requested the written statement be read back; the court declined but instructed jurors they could not draw adverse inference from Stark’s decision not to testify.
- The jury convicted Stark. A different judge sentenced him to 30–60 months’ imprisonment with Stark’s counsel’s consent to a different sentencing judge.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders brief, concluding the appeal was frivolous. The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's/Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: statement involuntary due to intoxication | Stark: he was under alcohol, Xanax, and unknown drug on Oct. 21 and lacked capacity to give a voluntary, knowing statement | Commonwealth: officer read Miranda warnings, Stark showed no objective signs of intoxication, produced coherent written statement and located traded items | Court: suppression court credibility findings supported; denial affirmed (issue frivolous) |
| Jury instruction on adverse inference from silence | Stark: trial court failed to instruct jury not to draw adverse inference from his not testifying | Commonwealth: no contemporaneous objection; trial court had told jurors earlier they could not use silence against him and declined to re-read the transcript | Court: issue waived because defense counsel expressly declined the charge; no relief |
| Sentencing by a different judge than trial judge | Stark: sentencing judge differed from trial judge, possibly violating Pa.R.Crim.P. 700(a) | Commonwealth: defense counsel stated on record that Stark consented to a different judge | Court: no error—defense counsel’s on-the-record consent made the change permissible |
| Counsel withdrawal under Anders/Santiago | Stark (implicitly): appellate review should consider potential issues | Counsel/Commonwealth: counsel complied with Anders/Santiago notice and brief requirements; petition to withdraw appropriate | Court: counsel met Anders requirements; independent review found no non-frivolous issues; granted withdrawal and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (rights to counsel and to be warned before custodial interrogation)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel to withdraw on appeal when claims are frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania-specific requirements for Anders brief content)
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression denials and deference to suppression court credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. McNeal, 120 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Rule 700(a) and when the trial judge should impose sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (notice requirements to appellant when counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders)