Commonwealth v. Bennett
124 A.3d 327
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Bennett repeatedly panhandled and was warned not to enter Li’s Kitchen parking lot; he was arrested there twice (Aug. 8 and Aug. 23, 2013).
- On Aug. 8 officers found a glass pipe with burned residue and a Brillo-type steel wool piece; Bennett was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, two counts of defiant trespass, and public drunkenness.
- At trial Bennett testified he remained on the public sidewalk and argued the restaurant’s surveillance video (not produced) would show this; officers testified they personally observed him in the parking lot.
- A jury convicted Bennett of two counts of defiant trespass and possession of drug paraphernalia; the trial judge convicted him of public drunkenness (summary).
- Bennett received aggregate incarceration of 12 months and 30 days to 24 months, followed by 12 months’ probation; counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; Bennett filed pro se motions including habeas and motion for relief of judgment.
- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, denied Bennett’s pro se filings (except noting ineffective-assistance claims are premature for PCRA), and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for defiant trespass | Commonwealth: testimony showed Bennett was warned and entered/ remained on property despite notice | Bennett: he remained on public sidewalk; surveillance would prove this | Held: Sufficient evidence supported trespass convictions based on repeated warnings and officers’ observations |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of drug paraphernalia | Commonwealth: pipe and Brillo with burned residue demonstrated possession/use for controlled substance | Bennett: no meaningful counter on possession; contested context | Held: Sufficient evidence supported paraphernalia conviction (pipe and residue) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for public drunkenness | Commonwealth: officers observed stumbling, slurred speech, disruptive/ dangerous conduct | Bennett: contested intoxication and conduct | Held: Sufficient evidence; judge found behavior dangerous/annoying and supported summary conviction |
| Defect in criminal complaint (no seal) | Bennett: absence of seal rendered complaint invalid and violated due process | Commonwealth: procedural defect must be raised timely and show prejudice | Held: Waived under Pa.R.Crim.P. 109 (not raised before end of preliminary hearing/trial); no demonstrated prejudice |
| Failure to give jury charge on best-evidence rule re: missing surveillance video | Bennett: video was the "best evidence" and absence required a charge | Commonwealth: officers gave eyewitness testimony; best-evidence rule governs proving contents of a recording, not weighing video vs eyewitness testimony | Held: No error — best-evidence rule inapplicable to force production charge; defense argued absence to jury and counsel referenced it in closing |
| Ineffective assistance / habeas claims | Bennett (pro se): counsel failed to protect his constitutional rights; generally raised ineffective assistance | Commonwealth/Court: such claims belong in a PCRA petition; habeas subsumed by PCRA | Held: Dismissed without prejudice to PCRA; not cognizable on direct appeal or via habeas here |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for withdrawal when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (Anders/Santiago briefing requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (scope of review when an appellant files a pro se response to an Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Baney, 860 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2004) (procedure for considering Anders brief and any pro se brief)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims are raised under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Byers, 467 A.2d 9 (Pa. Super. 1983) (habeas corpus subsumed by the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders principles referenced in Pennsylvania procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Anders/Santiago adherence and client notice requirements)