Commonwealth v. Childs
63 A.3d 323
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Jamal Childs was convicted after a bench trial of burglary and criminal conspiracy; sentence was 11.5–23 months with probation and various costs.
- Evidence showed fingerprints and palm prints on the victim’s open window, surveillance video identifying Appellant, and recovery of the stolen television linked to Frazier.
- Margita identified Appellant in surveillance footage and via text messages, and located her pawned television with matching serial numbers.
- Police and crime-lab reports connected Appellant and Scott to the burglary; arrest followed identification and pawn-shop documentation.
- Appellant challenged both the legality of costs (and lack of ability-to-pay hearing) and the weight of the evidence; appellate proceedings followed with a Rule 1925(b) statement.
- Trial court granted additional time-served credit and denied other relief; Judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ability-to-pay hearing for costs | Childs argues no hearing was held before imposing costs. | Childs asserts inability to pay should preclude or modify costs. | No pre-imposition hearing required; hearing required only before incarceration for nonpayment. |
| Weight of the evidence | Childs claims the evidence is too tenuous to convict him. | State asserts sufficient evidence from prints, video, and testimony. | Convictions not against the weight of the evidence; no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garzone, 993 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 2010) (legality of sentence; ability-to-pay considerations under costs rules)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 11 A.3d 519 (Pa. Super. 2010) (review of legality of sentence; standard for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 917 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. 2007) (hearing on ability to pay not required at sentencing; required before incarceration for nonpayment)
- Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (weight-of-the-evidence standard is discretionary, not sufficiency review)
- Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974) (constitutional limit on pre-sentence financial ability determinations)