Commonwealth v. Ferguson
107 A.3d 206
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Michael D. Ferguson was tried on consolidated informations for three July 2012 armed robberies (docket 761-2012) and an August 28, 2012 assault on co-conspirator Harry Boyer at the county jail (docket 874-2012); a third docket involving a sawed-off shotgun (757-2012) was tried separately.
- The Commonwealth moved to join the robbery and assault informations; the trial court granted joinder of 761-2012 and 874-2012 after hearing that statements during the jail assault tied the assault to the robberies.
- A jury convicted Ferguson on all counts at the joined trial; the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 35 to 73 years on November 4, 2013; post-sentence motions were denied and Ferguson appealed.
- Ferguson argued (1) joinder was improper and prejudicial, (2) jury deliberations were inadequate (jury took ~1 hour 6 minutes for 43 counts), and (3) verdicts were against the weight of the evidence attacking witness credibility and forensic gaps.
- The Superior Court affirmed the convictions on joinder, deliberation, and weight-of-the-evidence grounds but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because mandatory-minimum sentencing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 implicated Alleyne and controlling Pennsylvania precedents holding those statutory schemes unconstitutional as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ferguson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder of the robbery and jail-assault informations was proper | Joinder proper because evidence of each offense was admissible in a separate trial for the other (motive, conspiracy) and facts formed a natural development | Joinder prejudiced Ferguson; evidence of one crime would be inadmissible in a separate trial of the other and they were not same act/transaction | Affirmed joinder: evidence linked assault to robberies (threats about snitching), jury could separate issues, no undue prejudice |
| Whether jury deliberations were inadequate given short deliberation time | Jury verdict was valid; deliberation length alone insufficient to overturn verdict | Brief deliberations (~66 minutes) on 43 counts show inadequate deliberation, requiring new trial | Denied new trial: short deliberation time alone did not demonstrate unfairness or inadequacy |
| Whether verdicts were against the weight of the evidence | Commonwealth urged that credibility and identifications supported convictions | Ferguson attacked co-conspirator Boyer’s credibility, eyewitness IDs, DNA/forensic gaps | Weight claim denied: trial court did not abuse discretion; jurors resolve credibility and verdict did not shock conscience |
| Whether mandatory minimums under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 could be applied at sentencing after Alleyne | Commonwealth relied on jury verdicts (verdict slip included firearm-fear findings) and trial-court procedure | Ferguson argued Alleyne renders judge-found mandatory minimums unconstitutional; sentencing scheme could not be applied | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing without considering § 9712 mandatory minimums, following Newman/Watley line that the statutes are infirm post-Alleyne |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (fact that increases mandatory minimum must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- Newman v. Pennsylvania, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (post-Alleyne: mandatory-minimum predicates must be jury-found; related sentencing statutes are inseparable and unconstitutional as written)
- Watley v. Pennsylvania, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discusses Alleyne's effect on Pennsylvania mandatory-minimum statutes)
- Collins v. Commonwealth, 703 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1997) (joinder/severance test and prejudice standard; jury can separate distinguishable offenses)
- Lark v. Commonwealth, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) (joinder/severance framework; related crimes forming a sequence may be tried together)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 864 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2004) (trial court joinder discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Melendez–Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 856 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice from joinder)
- Lauro v. Commonwealth, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (other-crimes evidence admissible as part of natural development of case)
- Dreves v. Commonwealth, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (procedural reference on joined proceedings)