Com. v. White, M.
3767 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Michelle White was charged after a February 6, 2013 shooting that killed Kiree Harris; she pled guilty to third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit third-degree murder.
- White called Edwin and Evan Davis to confront a man who had been arguing with her father; the Davis brothers brought and loaded handguns at White’s home in her presence.
- White directed them to “take care of some business,” accompanied them to the apartment complex, and observed them fire multiple shots through a door, killing an uninvolved victim.
- White cooperated with prosecutors and testified against co-defendants; at sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms totaling 9 to 18 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal White challenged the trial court’s application of the deadly-weapon (used) sentencing enhancement and argued her sentence was excessive for failing to consider mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by applying the deadly-weapon (used) enhancement | White: enhancement wrong because she did not "use" the firearm; co-defendants used the gun | Commonwealth: trial court misapplied (used) enhancement but (possessed) enhancement would be appropriate | Court vacated sentence for misuse of the (used) enhancement and held (possessed) enhancement should apply |
| Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive / improperly considered sentencing factors | White: sentence excessive despite guilty plea and substantial cooperation; court focused only on gravity of offense | Commonwealth: did not concede excessiveness; argued enhancements supported sentence | Court did not decide merits of excessiveness claim because resentencing was required; remanded for new sentencing hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (deadly-weapon (used) enhancement improper where defendant did not employ the weapon; (possessed) may apply when weapon within immediate control)
- Commonwealth v. Pennington, 751 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 2000) (possession enhancement proper where co-conspirators had knowledge of and ready access to weapon)
- Commonwealth v. Greene, 702 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 1997) (weapons enhancement improper where defendant was a getaway driver and weapon was not on person or within immediate control)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standards for appellate review of sentencing discretionary aspects)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (what constitutes a substantial question for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (requirements to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing issues)