Commonwealth v. Bowen
55 A.3d 1254
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Bowen, III appeals his June 1, 2011 judgment of sentence imposing 6.5 to 15 years’ incarceration for fleeing/attempting to elude police, DUI, possession of a controlled substance, and drug paraphernalia.
- Facts center on Karen Dickey’s February 28, 2010 report of being followed by Bowen’s dark gray Sebring; a police chase lasted about 30 minutes and crossed into Maryland with speeds up to 70–100 mph.
- Spike strips were deployed; a PIT-style maneuver was used to stop Bowen; Bowen resisted and was tased and pulled from the vehicle.
- Paraphernalia and cocaine residue were found in Bowen’s car; a bottle of champagne and drug related items were observed; Bowen’s blood alcohol was .038 with cocaine/methadone detected.
- Fowler ( Bowen’s girlfriend) testified for the defense regarding Bowen’s paintball gun and alleged attempts to warn police; Bowen testified to intoxication and drug use that day.
- Bowen was convicted of aggravated fleeing/eluding (a 3rd-degree felony under §3733(a.2)(2)) and pled guilty to DUI; he challenged weight, sufficiency, discretionary sentencing, and legality of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of the fleeing-eluding conviction | Bowen argues insufficient evidence to prove fleeing/eluding. | Commonwealth contends evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt and credibility is for the jury. | Evidence supports conviction; weight claims fail as credibility is for the jury. |
| Discretionary aspects of the sentence outside guidelines | Bowen asserts excessive aggregate sentence, ignoring rehabilitation and remorse. | Commonwealth contends court properly weighed history, danger, and need for public protection; outside-guidelines sentence justified. | Sentence outside guidelines affirmed; court articulated reasons and found Bowen a poor rehabilitation candidate. |
| Legality of sentence given conflict between §3733(a.2)(2) and §6503 | Bowen claims §6503 (six-month cap for second/subsequent §3733 offenses) conflicts with §3733(a.2)(2) and prevails per Ruffin; sentence illegal. | Commonwealth argues §3733(a.2)(2) is a later-enacted special provision that prevails over §6503; legislative history confirms intent. | §3733(a.2)(2) prevails over §6503 for second/subsequent offenses; sentence legal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 5 A.3d 345 (Pa.Super.2010) (standard for sufficiency; evaluate all evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 932 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super.2007) (weight of the evidence limited; credibility calls are for the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa.Super.2007) (weight review; preserve discretion of trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 716 A.2d 1275 (Pa.Super.1998) (when departing from guidelines, record must state reasons)
- Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 16 A.3d 537 (Pa.Super.2011) (conflict between §6503 and §3733; 1933/1933 exception analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 805 A.2d 566 (Pa.Super.2002) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Arest, 734 A.2d 910 (Pa.Super.1999) (legality vs authority to impose sentence)