Commonwealth v. Griffin
65 A.3d 932
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Griffin was convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, and criminal conspiracy after a jury trial on March 25, 2010 in Philadelphia County.
- He received standard-range sentences: 4–8 years for aggravated assault and concurrent 2–4 year terms for robbery and conspiracy, followed by five years of probation.
- Griffin filed a pro se post-sentence motion; a retrial/reconsideration motion was denied; no direct appeal was filed at that time.
- A Post Conviction Relief Act petition reinstated Griffin’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc due to trial counsel’s failure to advise him of his right to appeal.
- Griffin pursued a counseled appeal and submitted a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors; he challenged the discretionary aspects of sentencing, weight of the evidence, and sufficiency/legality of the verdict.
- The Superior Court analyzed preservation of errors, waiver rules, and whether the sentence and verdict were manifestly unreasonable or contrary to law, ultimately affirming the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary-sentencing challenge preserved? | Griffin maintains sentence was harsh and unreasonable. | State argues no substantial question and/or improper preservation. | No reversible error; sentence within standard range; no substantial question established. |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict against the weight of the evidence. | Evidence sufficient and properly admitted. | Waived for purposes of appeal; not preserved in pre-sentence motion or Rule 1925(b) statement. |
| Sufficiency/legality of the verdict | Evidence identification testimony made conviction unlawful or unsupported. | Credibility/identification issues go to weight, not sufficiency. | Griffin waived challenge to sufficiency/legality; the record supports convictions; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa.Super.2010) (establishes four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review; substantial question standard)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa.Super.2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard; what constitutes manifest unreasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa.Super.2003) (preservation and waiver principles for sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235 (Pa.Super.2011) (weight-of-the-evidence claim must be raised pre-sentencing or in post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa.Super.2007) (substantial question framework for discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa.Super.2001) (rehabilitative-need arguments generally do not raise substantial questions when within guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222 (Pa.Super.2008) (claim that court failed to consider rehabilitative needs within guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Father, N/A (N/A) (placeholder not cited in opinion)