Commonwealth v. Hicks
151 A.3d 216
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On December 23, 2006, Terrill Javon Hicks (then 16) and Raymont Walker confronted victims in a neighborhood; Hicks fired multiple shots, killing Kevin Harrison and striking the occupied house where Michael Harris and Kendall Dorsey hid.
- Witnesses (Dorsey, McDonald, Harris) placed Hicks and Walker together before and at the scene; shell casings tied multiple shots to the same .45-caliber weapon.
- Hicks was convicted May 3, 2010 of first-degree murder, attempted homicide, aggravated assault(s), possession of a firearm by a minor, and conspiracy; initially sentenced to life without parole plus consecutive terms.
- After Miller v. Alabama, Hicks’s life-without-parole sentence was vacated and remanded; on October 23, 2015 he was resentenced to 35 years to life (murder) plus consecutive terms (aggregate 47.5 years to life).
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed convictions (sufficiency/weight of evidence; admissibility of later-shooting testimony) but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the court had relied on 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1 even though Hicks was convicted before that statute’s effective date; resentencing must follow Miller/Knox/Batts guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (Harris) and conspiracy/attempted homicide counts | Commonwealth: evidence (witness ID, presence of guns, circling car, casings, shots into occupied house) supports convictions | Hicks: victims were inside the house or not targeted; no proof of agreement between Hicks and Walker for conspiracy | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; firing into an occupied home shows reckless extreme indifference supporting aggravated assault and conspiracy inference from joint actions |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: jury credibility determinations control; contradictions do not warrant a new trial | Hicks: witness contradictions and delayed ID render verdict against weight of evidence | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; credibility issues were for jury and do not shock conscience |
| Admissibility of evidence about a separate April 2007 shooting (docket 8245-2007) | Commonwealth: testimony about the later shooting explained witness delay in identifying Hicks and was admissible under res gestae/other-act exceptions | Hicks: later shooting evidence was prejudicial and outweighed probative value under Pa.R.E. 403 | Affirmed: trial court properly exercised discretion; probative value (explaining delay and context) outweighed prejudice |
| Validity of sentencing procedure and sentence length on remand | Hicks: resentencing court improperly relied solely on §1102.1 and imposed manifestly excessive aggregate sentence without individualized Miller/Knox consideration | Commonwealth/Trial Court: imposed mandatory §1102.1 minimum and standard-range consecutive terms; emphasized gravity and public protection | Vacated and remanded: Superior Court found §1102.1 inapplicable to convictions before its effective date; trial court must resentence considering Miller/Knox/Batts factors (age-related individualized inquiry); all sentences vacated to permit full restructuring on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. Commonwealth, 820 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Hunter v. Commonwealth, 644 A.2d 763 (Pa. Super. 1994) (shooting into occupied home supports inference of intent/attempt to cause serious bodily injury)
- Eaddy v. Commonwealth, 614 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 1992) (discharging firearm into occupied dwelling can support attempt/assault inferences)
- Forbes v. Commonwealth, 867 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (weight-of-the-evidence principles; credibility is for factfinder)
- Knox v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Miller-related remand factors for juvenile resentencing)
- Batts v. Commonwealth, 125 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2015) (statutory/retroactivity guidance: §1102.1 not applicable to convictions before its effective date; remand for Miller-consistent individualized resentencing)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (presumption of reasonability for standard-range guideline sentences)