Commonwealth v. Heaster
171 A.3d 268
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant Skylar Heaster pled guilty to robbery for a Family Dollar store theft involving a knife on February 7, 2017; plea withdrawn other charges.
- Plea agreement stipulated the sentencing guideline should apply the "deadly weapon possessed" (not "used") enhancement matrix.
- At sentencing (March 28, 2017) the trial court relied on the pre-sentence report and, having "forgotten the stipulation," applied the "used" deadly-weapon matrix and imposed 4.5 to 9 years (within either matrix’s standard range).
- Heaster did not object at sentencing or file a post-sentence motion but timely filed a counseled notice of appeal and Rule 1925(b) statement.
- Heaster asserted (1) an excessive/abused-discretion sentence and improper application of the "used" enhancement contrary to the plea agreement, and (2) entitlement to an evidentiary hearing based on after-discovered evidence: his co-defendant’s cell phone allegedly containing exculpatory material.
Issues
| Issue | Heaster's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was excessive / court failed to consider rehabilitative needs | Court abused discretion and failed to tailor sentence to rehabilitative needs | Issue waived: no objection at sentencing or post-sentence motion | Waived for review for failure to preserve |
| Whether trial court violated plea agreement by applying "used" instead of "possessed" deadly-weapon enhancement | Plea stipulated to "possessed" matrix; "used" matrix applied, breaching bargain | Claim not preserved: no objection, no post-sentence motion, and appellant didn’t seek withdrawal of plea | Waived for failure to preserve; no relief granted |
| Whether after-discovered evidence (co-defendant’s cell phone) warrants evidentiary hearing/remand | Phone contains exculpatory evidence that could negate deadly-weapon issue and affect plea/sentencing; remand for hearing requested | Motion must be filed promptly and must describe evidence; appellant’s claims are conclusory and do not identify contents | Denied: appellant failed to plead what evidence exists or how it would change outcome; no hearing warranted |
| Procedural: Whether appellate challenges survive guilty plea | Guilty plea generally waives most claims; hybrid pleas preserve non-negotiated discretionary issues | The plea here was hybrid (agreement on enhancement only), preserving only non-agreed sentencing aspects | Court treated preserved/waived aspects accordingly; no relief where claims not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268 (Pa. 2014) (guilty plea extinguishes most legal challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discretionary-sentencing objections must be raised at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (after-discovered-evidence motions must be promptly filed and sufficiently specific; hearings are not fishing expeditions)
- Commonwealth v. Tann, 79 A.3d 1130 (Pa. Super. 2013) (after a negotiated plea, defendant may withdraw plea if deprived of bargained benefit)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standards for after-discovered evidence relief)