Commonwealth v. Hankerson
118 A.3d 415
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On March 8, 2012, Megan Keinert was robbed in her home; the intruder (a Black male) pointed a gun at her, tied her hands, and stole electronics and medications.
- Keinert observed the perpetrator at close range for about 30 seconds and later identified Hankerson from a Facebook photograph and by recognizing his voice on music recordings.
- Hankerson was tried by jury, convicted of robbery, burglary, and conspiracy, and the jury answered a special verdict question finding he possessed a firearm.
- At sentencing the trial court applied the mandatory minimum enhancement of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712, imposing an aggregate 7–20 year term and denying post-sentence relief.
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw; this Court found counsel complied with Anders/Santiago but, on independent review, identified a meritorious illegality-of-sentence issue.
- Ruling: the Superior Court denied counsel’s withdrawal, vacated Hankerson’s sentence because § 9712 is unconstitutional under Alleyne as applied, and remanded for resentencing without § 9712.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identification unduly suggestive | Police photo procedure tainted ID | Hankerson argued ID was impermissibly suggestive | Waived on appeal; frivolous if considered (identification originated from victim’s Facebook investigation) |
| Verdict against weight of evidence | Evidence insufficient; ID unreliable | Keinert’s testimony and investigation supported ID | Rejected — jury’s verdict did not shock the conscience |
| Application of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 mandatory minimum | Commonwealth relied on jury finding of firearm to trigger § 9712 | Hankerson argued § 9712 sentencing procedure unlawful under Alleyne | Court held § 9712 application rendered sentence illegal; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing without § 9712 |
| Counsel withdrawal under Anders/Santiago | Counsel asserted appeal frivolous and moved to withdraw | Hankerson could raise additional claims or retain new counsel | Petition to withdraw denied because court found a non-frivolous sentencing issue; counsel had complied with Anders/Santiago procedural requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (specifies required content of Anders briefs in Pennsylvania)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addressing court procedures used to impose mandatory minimums post-Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (held § 9712 unconstitutional as applied; sentences imposed under it are illegal)