Commonwealth v. Baker
72 A.3d 652
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Baker was convicted of seven PWID counts, seven possession charges and one paraphernalia count based on drug sales to an undercover officer and a informant in 2010.
- A search warrant executed at Baker's home recovered heroin in a wall letter holder, drug paraphernalia, a soda-can pipe, and a sawed-off shotgun near the heroin.
- Baker admitted some drug sales but claimed some drugs were for personal use; evidence also showed items suggesting sale (owe sheets, razors, false safes, three cell phones, large cash, and buy money).
- Jury found the shotgun was in close proximity to the heroin, supporting a firearm-enhanced PWID conviction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1.
- Baker received an aggregate 15 to 31-year sentence, with multiple consecutive and concurrent terms, including a five-year minimum for firearm proximity and a two-year minimum for PWID with heroin weight.
- On direct appeal, Baker challenged sufficiency of evidence, mandatory minimums aggregation, sentence length, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court’s denial of PCRA relief was not reviewed due to lack of express waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID count 7 | Baker argues the substance near the firearm wasn’t proven to be heroin. | Commonwealth failed to prove the substance was a controlled substance and possessed with intent to deliver. | Insufficient; the record supports heroin and intent to deliver. |
| Applicability of 9712.1(a) five-year minimum | Prosecution failed to prove substance proximate to firearm was a controlled substance or for delivery. | Court properly applied 9712.1(a) minimum given proximity to firearm and PWID conviction. | Minimum applied; proof satisfied. |
| Aggregation under 9712.1(b) with 7508(a)(7)(i) | Aggregation to multiple minimums may violate 9716 if inappropriate. | Hopkins allows aggregation between 9712.1 and 7508(a)(7) when within statutory maximum. | Consecutive application proper; no double jeopardy issue. |
| Sentencing discretion and reasonableness | Aggregate, long consecutive terms are unreasonable, not individualized, and fail 9721 standards. | Court properly considered SIL, guidelines, and Baker’s age/rehabilitative needs; no abuse. | Sentence not clearly unreasonable; affirmed. |
| Waiver and review of ineffective assistance on direct appeal | Baker expressly and knowingly waived PCRA rights to allow direct appeal of counsel ineffectiveness. | Waiver was not truly express/knowing/voluntary; Barnett/Liston require explicit waiver on record. | No valid express, knowing, voluntary PCRA waiver; request dismissed without prejudice for PCRA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa.Super.2013) (affirms 9712.1(b) aggregation when within maximum)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 25 A.3d 371 (Pa.Super.2011) (en banc; outlines waiver requirements for ineffective-assistance review on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa.2009) (necessity of express PCRA waiver for direct appeal ineffectiveness review)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa.2008) (prolix collateral claims require PCRA waiver on direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa.2002) (general rule to pursue ineffective assistance via PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa.2003) (pre-Grant ineffective-assistance review exception)
- Commonwealth v. Rios, 920 A.2d 790 (Pa.Super.2007) (colloquy required for waiver of rights)
- Commonwealth v. Faulk, 1066 (Pa.Super.2007) (colloquy required for waiver of certain rights)
- Commonwealth v. Zortman, 23 A.3d 526 (Pa.2011) (legislative purpose of 9712.1 to deter gun-drug violence)