Commonwealth v. Bricker
41 A.3d 872
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Bricker was convicted at a jury trial of six counts of criminal solicitation, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, two counts of corruption of minors, and one count of indecent assault; aggregate sentence 30 years, 3 months to 60 years, 6 months.
- The crimes involved Bricker directing and coercing 11-year-old boys (B.K. and L.F.) to perform sexual acts under his grooming and bribery scheme, and watching pornography together.
- Evidence showed Bricker paid B.K. and L.F. to touch each other and engage in anus-to-penis contact, with Bricker present and watching, followed by them viewing a nude DVD.
- Trial occurred May 5–6, 2010; sentence imposed February 4, 2011; post-sentence motion denied May 10, 2011; Bricker timely appealed.
- Appellant argues four issues: manifest excessiveness of sentence, insufficiency of solicitation convictions, improper jury instruction, and error in allowing amendment of the information.
- Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary-sentence substantial-question test | Bricker argues sentence is manifestly excessive. | Commonwealth maintains proper consideration of factors; not an abuse. | No abuse; substantial question lacking. |
| Solicitation sufficiency given peer sexual activity | Bricker cannot solicit acts not crimes between peers under In re B.A.M. | Solicitation offense applies when adult coerces acts by others; not barred. | Solicitation - upheld; acts here were coerced and criminal. |
| Jury instruction on criminal solicitation | In re B.A.M. precludes underlying crime; instruction error. | Instruction proper; law supports solicitation liability. | No error; instruction proper. |
| Amendment of information to include accomplice liability | Amendment issues affect counts 15–21. | Counts moot or independent; amendment proper as to count 20. | Merits lack; amendment not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (guidelines-based sentencing review requires substantial question to appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (substantial-question standard for discretionary appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (case-based inquiry for substantial questions in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Parrish, 490 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 1985) (sentence must protect society and rehabilitate; not only seriousness of offense)
- In re B.A.M., 806 A.2d 893 (Pa. Super. 2002) (peers under 13 not criminally liable for consensual acts; coercion by adult may support solicitation)
- Commonwealth v. Hacker, 15 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2011) (solicitation liability does not require victim age knowledge; encouragement suffices)
- Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (prescribed considerations for weighing factors in sentencing)