Commonwealth v. Griffin
149 A.3d 349
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Tyrice Griffin and co-defendant were tried for three armed robberies (Oct 8, Oct 12, Nov 4, 2013) across Lancaster, Cumberland, and Montgomery counties; prosecutions consolidated in Montgomery County.
- Jury convicted Griffin of three counts each of robbery, conspiracy, and carrying firearms without a license; bench convicted him of three counts of person not to possess a firearm after a bifurcated waiver.
- Commonwealth sought mandatory minimums under Pennsylvania’s second-strike recidivist statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 9714) based on Griffin’s prior third-degree murder conviction.
- At sentencing the court imposed six mandatory 10–20 year second-strike minimums (one for each robbery and one for each conspiracy), to run consecutively, for an aggregate 60–120 years; no additional penalty for firearm counts.
- Griffin appealed, arguing (1) Section 9714 cannot be applied both to conspiracy and to the substantive object offenses arising from the same episode, and (2) the aggregate sentence was an abuse of discretion and disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple second-strike enhancements may be imposed for both conspiracy and the underlying substantive crimes arising from the same episode | Commonwealth: Section 9714 applies to each crime of violence; multiple enhancements are permissible under Fields | Griffin: Statutory language (use of “or”) shows legislature intended enhancement for either principal offense or conspiracy, but not both | Court: Affirmed multiple enhancements; followed Fields — plain text of §9714 allows second-strike enhancement for each crime of violence committed |
| Whether the aggregate 60–120 year sentence was an abuse of discretion | Commonwealth: Sentence imposed pursuant to mandatory statutory minima and court’s discretion on consecutive service | Griffin: Aggregate sentence was grossly unreasonable and disproportionate | Court: Griffin waived discretionary-appeal argument by failing to include required Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement; claim not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fields, 107 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2014) (interpreting §9714 to permit second-strike enhancements for multiple crimes of violence committed in the same criminal episode)
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (explaining four-part test and requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 861 A.2d 304 (Pa. Super. 2004) (requiring a separate concise Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement when challenging discretionary aspects of sentence)
- McGrory v. Department of Transportation, 915 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 2007) (principles on statutory interpretation and reliance on plain statutory language)