Commonwealth v. Aikens
139 A.3d 244
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Markeith Aikens was charged with multiple sexual offenses including unlawful contact with a minor (18 Pa.C.S. §6318) and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI); at trial the jury convicted him of unlawful contact with a minor and corruption of minors, acquitting him of IDSI.
- Trial court graded unlawful contact as a first-degree felony (6–12 years) because the jury was instructed it had to find Aikens contacted the minor for the purpose of committing IDSI; court imposed aggregate 7–15 years.
- Aikens challenged the grading on appeal, arguing §6318 should have been graded only as a third-degree felony given the jury’s acquittal on the underlying Chapter 31 offense.
- The Commonwealth and trial court relied on the jury instructions and verdict: jury specifically found the purpose of contact was IDSI, a first-degree felony, satisfying §6318(b)(1).
- Superior Court reviewed the issue de novo as a legality-of-sentence claim and affirmed the trial court’s grading and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Aikens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unlawful contact with a minor under §6318 may be graded as F-1 when the jury acquitted the defendant of the charged Chapter 31 offense | Jury was instructed to find intent to commit IDSI; the jury’s guilty verdict on §6318 necessarily found intent to commit IDSI, so §6318 properly graded as the most serious underlying offense (F-1) | Reed requires default (F-3) when the Commonwealth charged underlying felonies but the jury acquitted on them; Aikens says Reed controls and F-1 grading is precluded by acquittal | Affirmed: where jury was instructed and found intent to commit a specific Chapter 31 offense (IDSI), §6318 may be graded according to that underlying offense (here F-1); Reed does not preclude grading where the jury actually found the specific underlying intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 9 A.3d 1138 (Pa. 2010) (Supreme Court held when Commonwealth charges multiple underlying offenses and jury acquits them, default grading applies because acquittals preclude attributing a specific underlying offense)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addresses grading and legality-of-sentence review under §6318)
- Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 883 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2005) (discusses the special weight afforded acquittals and limits on judicial fact-finding when grading offenses)