Com. v. Tucker, W.
1941 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Appellant Wesley A. Tucker was convicted of rape and related offenses; this Court in Tucker I vacated the aggregate sentence and remanded for resentencing because the rape and indecent assault convictions should have merged for sentencing.
- On remand the trial court limited the resentencing hearing to the merger issue and denied defense counsel’s request to present additional mitigation or to re-litigate alleged prior sentencing errors.
- The court resentenced Tucker to an aggregate term of 11 to 32 years’ imprisonment (essentially reflecting the court’s earlier rationale), and Tucker appealed.
- Tucker argued the trial court erred by restricting the evidentiary scope of the resentencing, violated his due process and Sixth Amendment rights, refused evidence of rehabilitation/risk, imposed an excessive sentence without adequate consideration of mitigating factors, and should have recused.
- The sentencing court relied on the presentence investigation, victim impact, and the brutal facts of the offense in imposing a sentence outside the guidelines.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found the remand scope permissible, held the trial court did not abuse its discretion on sentencing, and deemed the recusal claim waived.
Issues
| Issue | Tucker's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of resentencing hearing — may Tucker present new evidence at remand? | Remand hearing should allow presentation of additional mitigation and to correct prior sentencing errors. | Remand was limited to correcting the merger error; court properly confined proceedings to that instruction and acted within discretion. | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion in limiting resentencing to merger issue. |
| Due process / Sixth Amendment rights — was Tucker deprived by evidentiary limitation? | Limitation deprived Tucker of rights to present mitigating evidence and contest sentencing factors. | No deprivation: remand scope controlled by appellate mandate and trial court discretionary authority governed admissibility. | Denied — no constitutional violation found. |
| Discretionary aspects / excessiveness of sentence | Sentence is manifestly excessive; court failed to consider rehabilitative prospects and imposed high sentences despite zero prior record. | Court considered PSI, victim impact, offense brutality, and weighed factors; deviation from guidelines is permissible with reasons. | Denied — sentence not unreasonable; no abuse of discretion; presumption that PSI informed court. |
| Recusal — should judge have recused for knowledge of other allegations? | Judge’s reference to another accuser shows bias and warrants recusal. | Claim was not preserved below and not developed on appeal; trial judge stated it did not factor into sentence. | Waived — appellant failed to preserve or develop recusal argument; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 934 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007) (vacatur of sentence leaves admissibility of evidence at resentencing to trial court’s discretion when no restraints imposed by appellate mandate)
- Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552 (Pa. Super. 2006) (remand instruction where vacatur upsets sentencing scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing court informed by PSI considered all appropriate factors)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (appellate relief for unreasonable sentence should be rare; outlines standard for reviewing outside-guidelines sentences)