Commonwealth v. Bernal
200 A.3d 995
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- In 2003 Gabino Bernal lived with his girlfriend and her children; he was convicted by a jury of unlawful contact with a minor, indecent assault of a person under 13, and corruption of minors (acquitted of child rape).
- Initial sentencing (Nov. 19, 2013): 9–18 years on unlawful contact; this Court vacated and remanded because the offense was misgraded (Bernal I).
- On remand the trial court resentenced Bernal to statutory-maximum aggregate 6–17 years (consecutive sentences), triggering a second appeal; this Court again vacated and remanded, criticizing the trial court’s failure to consider sentencing guidelines, rehabilitative needs, an updated PSI, and individualized sentencing (Bernal II).
- Bernal sought recusal of Judge Donna Jo McDaniel based on this Court’s concerns and an alleged pattern of above-guidelines, maximum consecutive sentences for sex offenders; the trial court denied recusal without a hearing and reimposed the same sentence after reading a preprepared statement and initially not permitting allocution or counsel argument.
- The Superior Court concluded the record showed an appearance of bias (including the judge’s prior similar conduct, prewritten statement, and critical remarks toward defense counsel) and vacated the judgment of sentence, ordering reassignment for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge erred in denying recusal | Bernal: reasonable observer would question impartiality given prior appellate criticism, pattern of harsh sex-offender sentences, prewritten statement, and critical remarks toward defense counsel | Trial court: denied motion, defended sentencing record with statistics and asserted no actual bias | Held: Abuse of discretion; recusal required because appearance of bias and lack of individualized sentencing were present |
| Whether sentence was excessive / improper procedure | Bernal: sentence was manifestly excessive, far above guidelines for a PRS=0 offender, no updated PSI, no individualized consideration, allocution/counsel argument improperly curtailed | Commonwealth: justification based on offense seriousness and court’s sentencing practice; statistical defense of sentencing rates | Not addressed on merits (vacatur on recusal ground made merits moot) |
| Whether judge followed sentencing rules (guidelines/allocution/statement of reasons) | Bernal: court failed to acknowledge guidelines, provide contemporaneous reasons, allow timely allocution, or consider mitigation | Court: claimed it addressed statutory factors and had statistics supporting its practice | Superior Court found procedural failures and practices that contributed to appearance of bias; remand for reassignment |
| Whether cumulative record requires reassignment | Bernal: pattern of conduct and specific hearing behavior show substantial doubt as to impartiality | Court: argued its statistical analysis and denials show no bias | Held: Reassignment to a different judge for resentencing ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. White, 734 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1999) (presumption that judges are honorable and duty to determine ability to preside impartially)
- Commonwealth v. Lemanski, 529 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 1987) (recusal required when impartiality can reasonably be questioned)
- Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 479 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 1984) (appearance of bias test; reasonable observer standard)
- Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2010) (cumulative effect of judge’s remarks can warrant recusal)
- In Interest of McFall, 617 A.2d 707 (Pa. 1992) (appearance of prejudice sufficient to require new proceedings)
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2016) (due process violated where circumstances give rise to unacceptable risk of actual bias)