Commonwealth v. Bragg
133 A.3d 328
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Gregory Bragg committed two bank robberies in Philadelphia (May 12 and August 11, 2012); he later confessed in writing to both robberies.
- At the PNC Bank robbery (Aug. 11), Bragg wore a disguise, banged on the counter, demanded large bills, fled with approximately $3,700, changed clothes in a nearby yard, poured gasoline on the discarded clothes, and set them on fire.
- The fire scorched a cinderblock wall, a wooden fence, and ignited vegetation near row homes; an Assistant Fire Marshal testified the blaze could have spread to surrounding houses.
- Police pursuit resulted in Bragg tossing stolen money into a trashcan and officers discovering he had a knife; he was arrested after backup arrived.
- Bragg waived a jury trial; a bench trial convicted him of first‑degree arson, two counts of robbery (including first‑degree), and related offenses.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate 10–20 year term, including a 10‑year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 based on a prior violent‑crime conviction; Bragg appealed challenging arson and robbery sufficiency and the mandatory minimum’s constitutionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of arson conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(a)(1)(i) | Evidence showed Bragg intentionally started a fire in a residential driveway that could recklessly place others (homeowners, occupants, firefighters) in danger. | Bragg argued the fire did not place any person in danger of death or serious bodily injury. | Affirmed — fire, scorch damage, spreading vegetation, and expert opinion supported that the fire could have endangered nearby residents, satisfying § 3301(a)(1)(i). |
| Sufficiency of robbery conviction as first‑degree (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii)) | Aggressive conduct (disguise, sneer, banging on counter, demands) constituted conduct that threatened or put victims in fear of immediate serious bodily injury. | Bragg contended absence of a weapon or explicit verbal threat meant only second‑degree robbery applied. | Affirmed — Commonwealth need not show an explicit verbal threat or weapon; aggressive intimidating actions can support first‑degree robbery under § 3701(a)(1)(ii). |
| Constitutionality of mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 (Alleyne claim) | Mandatory minimum based on prior violent‑crime conviction is permissible; Alleyne’s rule does not apply to prior‑conviction factfinding. | Bragg argued Alleyne requires any fact increasing penalty be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, rendering the statute unconstitutional as applied. | Affirmed — Alleyne contains a narrow exception for prior convictions; Superior Court precedent upheld § 9714 as constitutional when triggering facts are prior convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 459 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1983) (aggressive nonverbal conduct can establish threat for first‑degree robbery)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact that increases the statutory penalty is an element to be submitted to a jury)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (narrow exception allowing prior convictions to be treated as sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (held § 9714’s mandatory minimums based on prior convictions are not invalidated by Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. McGinnis, 392 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1978) (per curiam order referenced regarding arson demurrer; limited precedential effect)