Com. v. Watson, E.
228 A.3d 928
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background
- On March 12, 2015 Watson followed a woman, grabbed and broke the clip on a wallet strapped to her wrist, took the wallet and fled; he was convicted at a bench trial of robbery, theft, receipt of stolen property, and simple assault.
- Original sentencing (June 7, 2016) imposed 3–6 years’ incarceration + 4 years’ probation for robbery and 12 months’ probation consecutive for simple assault; Watson appealed.
- This Court vacated and remanded the original sentence because the sentencing judge had relied on evidence not of record (about Watson’s high‑school education) to discount mitigating intellectual limitations.
- On remand the trial court denied Watson’s recusal motion and his request for a new PSI, then imposed a harsher sentence (5–10 years § robbery, plus 2 years’ probation consecutive for simple assault); Watson appealed.
- The Superior Court vacated the resentencing and remanded for a new sentence before a different judge, concluding the increased sentence gave rise to a presumption of vindictiveness that the court failed to rebut, the denial of recusal was an abuse, and the simple‑assault sentence should have merged with robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing produced an illegally vindictive/increased sentence | Commonwealth: sentencing judge lawfully reconsidered factors and imposed appropriate sentence | Watson: increase after successful appeal was vindictive and violated due process | Vacated resentencing; presumption of vindictiveness arose and was not rebutted by objective, new reasons => remand |
| Whether court erred in denying a new PSI for resentencing | Commonwealth: existing PSI and record sufficed for informed sentencing | Watson: original PSI was ~3 years old and did not address post‑incarceration conduct; new PSI was needed | Denial raised a substantial question; remand ordered (resentencing vacated) |
| Whether court double‑counted prior convictions/prior adjudications when departing from guideline range | Commonwealth: guidelines and court’s consideration were proper | Watson: court relied on factors already in the guidelines (double‑counting) to aggravate sentence | Claim presented a substantial question; court’s reasoning inadequate in light of increased sentence => remand for resentencing |
| Whether the trial judge should have been recused for bias after remand | Commonwealth: judge competent to sit and rule on recusal | Watson: judge showed animus/retaliation by imposing harsher sentence after appeal | Denial of recusal was abused; reasonable question about impartiality given resentencing conduct => new judge must resentence |
| Whether simple assault merged with robbery for sentencing | Commonwealth: offenses were separately punishable | Watson: assault was lesser‑included offense of robbery and must merge | Court held offenses arose from single act and simple assault merged into robbery; separate sentence illegal => remand for resentencing without separate assault sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 197 A.3d 742 (Pa. Super. 2018) (failure to order new PSI on remand presents substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110 (Pa. Super. 2017) (presumption of vindictiveness on resentencing cannot be rebutted without objective new information)
- Commonwealth v. Bernal, 200 A.3d 995 (Pa. Super. 2018) (where judge denies recusal but then demonstrates bias at resentencing, new judge should impose sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 96 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Super. 2014) (robbery and simple assault may merge where assault elements are included in robbery)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (PSI generally permits presumption that sentencing court was aware of relevant mitigation)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (double‑counting guideline factors can raise substantial question)