Commonwealth v. Felder
75 A.3d 513
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Felder appeals a May 7, 2012 judgment of sentence following convictions for intimidation of a witness/victim, simple assault, and conspiracy to commit simple assault.
- The trial court sentenced Felder to 54–174 months for intimidation, 3–12 months consecutive for simple assault, and 3–12 months consecutive for conspiracy, total 60–198 months.
- On appeal Felder argues (1) the 5–16 year state incarceration for a essentially simple assault street fight exceeds her zero prior record score, and (2) the grading of the intimidation offense under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4952(b) is unconstitutional or ambiguous.
- The Commonwealth contends discretionary sentencing challenges were not preserved for review, and the grading is proper under § 4952(b) as the most serious charged offense.
- The court addresses preservation and then interprets § 4952(b) to determine the proper grade based on the most serious offense charged in the case.
- The court affirms the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Felder preserved discretionary-sentencing claims. | Felder (Felder) asserts discretionary error. | Commonwealth argues no preservation. | Waived; no preservation shown. |
| Whether 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4952(b)(2) properly grades intimidation when a first-degree felony was charged. | Felder argues grading should reflect the highest grade existing at sentencing. | Commonwealth argues grading follows § 4952(b)(2) when a first-degree felony was charged. | Properly graded as a first-degree felony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diamond, 945 A.2d 252 (Pa.Super.2008) (discretionary-sentencing claims must be raised in court to be preserved)
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa.Super.2010) (waiver for discretionary aspects if not raised at sentencing or in post-sentence motions)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa.Super.2006) (discretionary-sentencing issues require proper preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa.Super.2004) (grading of offenses implicates legality of sentence; review de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 607 Pa. 629 (Pa.2010) (distinguishes Reed's underlying statutory construction; not controlling here)
- Commonwealth v. Davidson, 595 Pa. 1 (Pa.2007) (statutory interpretation is with plenary review; plain meaning governs)
- Commonwealth v. Omar, 602 Pa. 595 (Pa.2009) (presumption of constitutionality; heavy burden on challengers)