Commonwealth v. Devries
112 A.3d 663
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Nicole Devries (defendant) was tried by jury and convicted of escape, resisting arrest, two counts of reckless endangerment, DUI, and possession of drug paraphernalia; aggregate sentence 25–60 months.
- Facts: probation officers visited Devries for a supervised drug test; preliminary positive for opiates; officers told her she would be arrested and taken to jail.
- Devries fled to her car and dragged an officer a short distance; she was thereafter charged with escape (among other offenses).
- At trial the jury found guilt and indicated on the verdict form that Devries employed “force, threat, a deadly weapon or other dangerous instrumentality” (the form did not distinguish which of those was found).
- At sentencing the trial court applied the Deadly Weapon Enhancement (DWE) under 204 Pa. Code § 303, increasing the standard range; Devries argued the enhancement was barred because possession/use of a deadly weapon is an element of felony-escape.
- Superior Court affirmed venue and sufficiency rulings, but vacated the DWE application and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for change of venue based on complaining witnesses being county employees | Commonwealth: venue was proper; no proof jurors were biased | Devries: juror prejudice likely because victims were county court employees | Denied — no evidence jurors formed fixed opinions or that fair trial impossible; Armor inapposite because no claim of judicial bias |
| Sufficiency of evidence for escape (was defendant under "official detention") | Commonwealth: probation supervision plus explicit statements that she would be arrested constituted official detention | Devries: supervision of probation is excluded from "official detention" definition | Denied — viewed in Commonwealth’s favor, officers told her she would be arrested and she knew she was in custody; sufficient evidence of official detention |
| Application of Deadly Weapon Enhancement (DWE) to felony-escape | Commonwealth: jury found a dangerous instrumentality employed, so DWE may apply; no double-counting problem | Devries: possession/use of a deadly weapon is an element of felony-escape, so §303(a)(3)(ix) bars the DWE (would double-count) | Vacated DWE — because felony-escape’s elements include use of a deadly weapon, §303(a)(3)(ix) prohibits applying the DWE; remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 612 A.2d 1382 (Pa. Super. 1992) (standard of review for change of venue)
- Commonwealth v. Boring, 684 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. 1996) (venue/pretrial publicity inquiry: whether jurors formed fixed opinions)
- Commonwealth v. Fountain, 811 A.2d 24 (Pa. Super. 2002) (official detention can exist prior to formal arrest when officer indicates arrest is imminent)
- Commonwealth v. McClintic, 909 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2006) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 14 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2011) (principles of statutory construction and effect of the Statutory Construction Act)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 962 A.2d 1160 (Pa. 2009) (penal statutes are strictly construed; ambiguity benefited accused)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 102 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Super. 2014) (application of statutes and regulations in sentencing/DWE context)