Com. v. Suarez, H.
Com. v. Suarez, H. No. 3839 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Hector Suarez was tried for sexual offenses against his 11‑year‑old granddaughter, arising from alleged acts between Nov. 2012–Sept. 2013; charges were filed under two informations that were consolidated for trial.
- The jury convicted Suarez of: indecent assault of a person under 13, endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC), and corruption of minors; acquitted on aggravated indecent assault and IDSI.
- The original sentence (Jan. 23, 2015) totaled 36–120 months; this Court previously vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial court had imposed multiple sentences per guilty verdict.
- On remand (Nov. 10, 2016) Suarez received an aggregate 36–120 months: consecutive 18–60 months for EWOC and 18–60 months for corruption of minors; motion for reconsideration denied and appeal followed.
- Suarez challenged (inter alia) the trial court’s grading of offenses as third‑degree felonies based on a “course of conduct,” argued insufficiency and weight of the evidence for that course‑of‑conduct finding, and claimed the consecutive sentences were unreasonable.
- The Superior Court declined to address sufficiency/weight claims raised after remand (holding them beyond the scope of the resentencing appeal), and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Suarez's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether offenses were properly graded as third‑degree felonies based on a "course of conduct" | Suarez: no continuous course of conduct shown; incidents were distinct and separated in time, so felony grading improper | Trial court: course‑of‑conduct finding supported; grading proper | Held: Grading was proper (court adopted prior panel reasoning) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove a course of conduct | Suarez: insufficient evidence to establish continuing course required for felony convictions | Commonwealth: evidence supported course of conduct | Held: Not addressed on appeal (claims outside scope after remand) |
| Weight of the evidence (verdict against weight) regarding course of conduct | Suarez: verdict against weight for felony course‑of‑conduct finding | Commonwealth: verdict supported by trial evidence | Held: Not addressed on appeal (claims outside scope after remand) |
| Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion | Suarez: convictions relate to same instance; sentences should run concurrent; consecutive sentences unreasonable | Commonwealth: exercise of discretion to impose consecutive terms is generally not a substantial question; prior panel rejected this claim | Held: No relief; court affirmed consecutive sentencing and adopted prior memorandum reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (imposition of consecutive vs. concurrent sentences ordinarily does not present a substantial question on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (treatment of consecutive sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2006) (consecutive sentence review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 801 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2002) (after remand for resentencing, new appeals cannot raise issues unrelated to the resentencing)