Commonwealth v. Cianci
130 A.3d 780
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On July 3–4, 2012 Anthony Cianci assaulted his girlfriend, causing an orbital blowout fracture, bruises, a swollen lip, and scratches.
- He was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. §2702(a)(1)), simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP) (18 Pa.C.S. §2705).
- Trial court sentenced Cianci to 60–120 months’ incarceration for aggravated assault (plus 5 years’ probation) and a consecutive 6–12 months for REAP; simple assault was merged for sentencing.
- Cianci filed a timely post-sentence motion; after denying it he failed to file a direct appeal. He later obtained PCRA relief to reinstate his direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc and appealed.
- Appellant’s sole claim: REAP and aggravated assault should have merged for sentencing because the convictions rested on the same facts and REAP’s elements are subsumed by aggravated assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether REAP and aggravated assault must merge for sentencing | Cianci: crimes arise from the same act and REAP’s elements are included in aggravated assault, so merger is required | Commonwealth: under 42 Pa.C.S. §9765 the elements differ (serious bodily injury vs. actual present danger) so they do not merge | Convictions do not merge; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Quintua v. Commonwealth, 56 A.3d 399 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (Section 9765 elements-based merger analysis governs)
- Coppedge v. Commonwealth, 984 A.3d 562 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (pre-9765 merger law is displaced; ask whether elements of one offense are included in the other)
- Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (REAP requires actual present ability to inflict harm, not mere apprehension)
- Vogelsong v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 717 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (example of REAP where conduct placed others in actual danger)
- Lopez v. Commonwealth, 654 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (aggravated assault can be proven even if targeted victim was not actually present)
- Dobbs v. Commonwealth, 682 A.2d 388 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (prior merger precedent; court explains Dobbs is inapplicable post-Section 9765)
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (cited for standard of review in merger/legal-sentence challenges)