Commonwealth v. Dozier
99 A.3d 106
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- In the early morning of Oct. 24, 2000, A.R. was assaulted and raped in her home in Philadelphia in front of her two young children; she identified Maurice L. Dozier, a neighborhood acquaintance, as the attacker.
- Police located Dozier shortly after the attack; A.R. made an in-person positive identification at the scene and a rape kit collected semen and DNA consistent with Dozier.
- Dozier was convicted after a non-jury trial (July 11, 2002) of rape, aggravated assault, aggravated indecent assault, PIC, unlawful restraint, simple assault, and REAP; sentenced Dec. 12, 2002 to an aggregate 14½ to 29 years.
- No direct appeal was filed initially; Dozier filed PCRA petitions, was later granted nunc pro tunc reinstatement of appellate rights, and pursued pro se direct appeal raising numerous claims.
- The trial court and this Court pared Dozier’s many claims to a handful: (1) illegal arrest/search, (2) confrontation/right to face accuser, (3) sentencing delay/speedy-trial-type claim, and (4) alleged absence of a written sentencing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dozier) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless arrest / search | Arrest and seizure were unlawful because no warrant specifically described place/person/thing seized | Police had probable cause to arrest without a warrant based on victim’s immediate identification and circumstances | Arrest lawful; victim’s immediate identification and proximity provided probable cause; search claim not reviewable because no incriminating item was seized/used at trial |
| Right to confront accuser | Dozier contends he was denied confrontation (identifies prosecutor-affiant as "accuser") | Commonwealth: the victim (A.R.) was the accuser and Dozier was afforded confrontation; Dozier cites no on-point law | Waived and meritless; no basis that the prosecutor-affiant was the accuser; issue waived for inadequate briefing and lack of specific authority |
| Miranda / involuntary statements; speedy trial issues | Dozier argued Miranda violations and speedy trial violations | Commonwealth treated many of these claims as waived because not properly preserved in Rule 1925(b) statement | Miranda and speedy-trial related claims waived for failure to preserve in Rule 1925(b) or to brief adequately |
| Delay between conviction and sentencing (Rule 704/702) | Sentencing occurred ~154 days after conviction; Dozier sought discharge for sentencing beyond rule period | Commonwealth: Rule 704 (successor to 1405) allowed up to 90 days plus extensions for psychological exam; any delay must prejudice defendant to warrant discharge | Denied relief: delay (~34 days beyond rule) insufficient absent a showing of prejudice under Barker balancing; Dozier made no prejudice showing |
| Alleged lack of written sentencing order | Dozier contends no sentencing order exists; detention illegal without it | Record contains the written sentencing order; possession by agencies irrelevant to validity | Denied: certified record contains the sentencing order; argument fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 735 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 1999) (warrantless public-arrest rule: officers need no warrant to arrest in public when they have probable cause to believe a felony was committed and the person arrested is the felon)
- Commonwealth v. Sabb, 409 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. 1979) (victim’s prompt descriptive identification can supply probable cause for warrantless arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Cain, 29 A.3d 3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (remand for fact-finding where judge’s impartiality potentially questionable due to events predating trial)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 586 A.2d 369 (Pa. 1991) (delay in sentencing is analyzed under Barker speedy-trial balancing factors)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (framework for analyzing speedy-trial claims: length, reason, defendant’s assertion, prejudice)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (protection against compelled self-incrimination; custodial interrogation warnings required)
- Commonwealth v. Anders, 725 A.2d 170 (Pa. 1999) (defendant sentenced in violation of sentencing-time rule must show prejudice to obtain discharge)