Commonwealth v. Diaz
152 A.3d 1040
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Harnett Diaz, stepfather of a 15‑year‑old, transported the 15‑year‑old’s 17‑year‑old friend (Victim) to New York, provided alcohol, and later drove her to a secluded service road where he sexually assaulted her while she was heavily intoxicated.
- Victim testified she was “blacking in and out,” could not speak, felt her body was “dead weight,” and later told the stepdaughter that “something may have happened.”
- A jury convicted Diaz of multiple sexual‑offense counts including rape of an unconscious person and corruption of minors; he was acquitted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
- Commonwealth sought imposition of a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 based on prior convictions: a 1998 New York attempted robbery and a 2001 federal conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery and use of a firearm (including an 18 U.S.C. § 1951 conviction and a § 924(c) firearm count).
- Trial court found the federal conviction qualified as a prior “crime of violence” under § 9714 and imposed a 10‑year mandatory minimum; Diaz appealed challenging sufficiency and weight of the evidence and the § 9714 sentence.
- Superior Court affirmed convictions, rejected sufficiency and weight challenges (finding Erney controlling on intoxicated/unconscious victims), but vacated the § 9714 mandatory minimum because the federal § 1951 offense was not equivalent to the Pennsylvania robbery subsection requiring a threat or fear of serious bodily injury, and § 924(c) did not convert it into an equivalent crime; remanded for resentencing without § 9714 minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Diaz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Was evidence sufficient to prove Victim was unconscious/unaware during assault? | Victim’s testimony that she was intermittently unconscious and unable to consent supports convictions under § 3121(a)(3) and related statutes. | Victim’s ability to recall some events shows she was aware; inebriation ≠ unconsciousness, so insufficent for unconscious‑person offenses. | Held: Evidence sufficient; Erney permits finding intermittent unconsciousness from intoxication. |
| Weight of the evidence: Does verdict shock the conscience? | Victim’s credible testimony suffices; lack of physical corroboration does not defeat conviction. | Testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated; verdict is against the weight of evidence. | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock the conscience. |
| Alleyne challenge: Is § 9714 unconstitutional under Alleyne because judge found prior conviction by preponderance? | Alleyne’s prior‑conviction exception permits judge‑found prior convictions; § 9714 survives Alleyne. | Mandatory minimum based on judge’s finding under preponderance violates Alleyne. | Held: No relief; precedents (Reid) treat § 9714 as not unconstitutional under Alleyne. |
| § 9714 equivalency: Was Diaz’s federal § 1951 conviction (and § 924(c) firearm count) an equivalent “crime of violence” (robbery requiring threat/fear of serious bodily injury) under § 9714(g)? | Federal § 1951 criminalizes robbery/extortion by threat of force or fear (including threats to property); combined with § 924(c) it demonstrates violent conduct equivalent to PA robbery. | Federal statute covers threats to property and fear of injury not limited to "serious bodily injury"; § 924(c) is a sentencing enhancement, not a substantive violent offense; thus not equivalent to PA robbery subsection requiring serious bodily injury. | Held: Federal § 1951 (and § 924(c)) are broader and do not require threat/causing of serious bodily injury; not equivalent to the listed PA robbery subsection. Trial court erred; vacate § 9714 minimum and remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Erney, 548 Pa. 467, 698 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1997) (intoxicated victim who was intermittently unconscious may satisfy "unconscious person" element for rape)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 627 Pa. 623, 101 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing penalty must be found by a jury, with narrow prior‑conviction exception)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Section 9714 held not unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Northrip, 603 Pa. 544, 985 A.2d 734 (Pa. 2009) (test for whether out‑of‑state/federal offense is an "equivalent" crime under § 9714)
- Commonwealth v. Greene, 25 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (out‑of‑state statutes that "cast a wider net" are not equivalent to PA § 9714 predicate robbery subsections)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 831 A.2d 661 (Pa. Super. 2003) (distinguished; federal armed‑robbery statute in that case aligned with PA robbery subsection when it included use/putting in jeopardy by a dangerous weapon)