Commonwealth v. Armstrong
74 A.3d 228
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Anthony Armstrong was charged with two separate attempted burglaries (Jan 3 and Mar 2, 2009) and possessing instruments of crime after being observed attempting to pry windows with a crowbar/metal tool and fleeing when police arrived. Victims were women alone at night; one identified appellant at the scene.
- The Commonwealth consolidated the two cases for joint trial; trial delays occurred from defense continuances and court reassignment; jury trial began Nov. 28, 2011.
- A jury convicted Armstrong (Dec. 1, 2011). At sentencing the trial court treated him as a fourth-strike offender and imposed consecutive mandatory terms of 25–50 years for each attempted burglary plus 2.5–5 years for the instruments charge (aggregate 52.5–105 years).
- Armstrong appealed, raising six issues: joinder, Rule 600 (speedy trial), suppression of identification, legality of three‑strikes sentencing (Shiffler/McClintic issues), consecutive strike application, and excessiveness of aggregate sentence.
- The appellate court affirmed joinder, affirmed denial of the Rule 600 dismissal, affirmed denial of suppression, but held the court erred legally in imposing a third‑strike (and effectively fourth‑strike) mandatory sentence and vacated the illegal portion of the sentence; remanded for resentencing under §9714(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of the two cases | Commonwealth: facts show common scheme/modus operandi; joinder proper | Armstrong: offenses not part of common plan; joinder unduly prejudicial | Affirmed — offenses were highly correlated (time, place, victim profile, method); admissible under Pa.R.E. 404(b) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 582(A) |
| Rule 600 speedy‑trial dismissal | Armstrong: trial commenced beyond 365 days; Commonwealth lacked due diligence | Commonwealth: delays attributable to defendant and court (continuances, warrant, reassignment) | Affirmed — court credited excludable/ excusable delays; final run dates extended; no Rule 600 violation |
| Suppression of one‑on‑one identification | Armstrong: show‑up was unduly suggestive (handcuffs, police statements, brief view) | Commonwealth: victim had close, recent view; identification reliable | Affirmed — totality of circumstances made identification reliable; on‑scene one‑on‑one not inherently irreparably suggestive |
| Legality of three‑strike sentencing | Armstrong: could not receive third‑strike enhancement because he was never previously sentenced as a second‑strike offender (relies on Shiffler/McClintic) | Commonwealth: prior violent convictions suffice to count strikes | Reversed in part — court held sentencing as third‑strike (and consecutive 25–50 terms) was illegal where prior convictions did not yield prior strike sentencing; remanded for sentencing under §9714(a)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 605 Pa. 825, 989 A.2d 883 (cert. denied) (standard for joinder and Pa.R.Crim.P. 582)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 425 A.2d 715 (1981) (joinder appropriate when crimes show distinctive modus operandi)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 600 framework: mechanical run date, excludable time, due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2003) (factors governing reliability of one‑on‑one identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 583 Pa. 478, 879 A.2d 185 (2005) (interpreting §9714; sequential/recidivist approach to strikes)
- Commonwealth v. McClintic, 589 Pa. 465, 909 A.2d 1241 (2006) (discusses sequence requirement for §9714 enhancements)
- Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (applying Shiffler to hold trial court must treat defendant as second‑time offender when prior sentences did not provide opportunity to reform)