Commonwealth v. Jacobs
39 A.3d 977
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Appellant Andre Jacobs was convicted of attempted escape, conspiracy to commit escape, and possession of implements of escape stemming from a botched jail escape by Frank Seretich.
- The incidents occurred January 12, 2006, in the Allegheny County Jail; a hole between cells and tools used to remove Lexan windows were found.
- Evidence showed Seretich escaped briefly and Appellant pulled the rope back into his cell, with materials linking both inmates to the escape plan.
- The trial court sentenced Jacobs to concurrent 16–32 month terms for attempted escape and conspiracy, plus 33–66 months for possession, total 49–98 months.
- Jacobs challenged the sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence and argued that Section 906 barred dual sentences for inchoate crimes aimed at the same objective: his escape.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the conspiracy was designed to culminate in Seretich’s escape, not solely Jacobs’s, so Section 906 did not bar separate sentences; the Supreme Court granted review to determine the legality of the sentences under 18 Pa.C.S. § 906.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 906 bars multiple sentences for inchoate crimes | Jacobs: both attempt and conspiracy aimed at same crime (his escape). | Commonwealth: conspiracy had distinct objective (Seretich’s escape or both). | Not barred; separate objectives present. |
| What was the object of the conspiracy to commit escape | Conspiracy could be solely Jacobs’s escape, requiring merging. | Conspiracy involved Seretich’s escape as well; record shows dual objectives. | Conspiracy had separate/dual objectives; not solely Jacobs’s escape. |
| Is the jury verdict ambiguous about the conspiracy object | General verdict could imply Jacobs’s sole escape; Apprendi concerns | Evidence and instructions show conspiracy aimed at Seretich’s escape; no ambiguity. | Record shows no ambiguity; conspiracy objective supported by evidence. |
| Did the trial court err in applying 906 given the evidence | Error to sentence for both inchoate crimes if they culminate in same crime. | Different objects justify separate sentencing. | No error; sentences permissible under §906. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Graves, 510 Pa. 423, 508 A.2d 1198 (1986) (inchoate crimes merge only when directed to same crime)
- Commonwealth v. Maguire, 307 Pa.Super. 80, 452 A.2d 1047 (Pa. Super. 1982) (conviction vs. judgment; 'conviction' means judgment for §906)
- Commonwealth v. Grekis, 411 Pa.Super. 513, 601 A.2d 1284 (1992) (§906 multiple sentences governs preparation for single objective)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 604 Pa. 176, 985 A.2d 915 (2009) (circumstantial proof of conspiracy and nonjury findings; Apprendi context)
- Commonwealth v. Riley, 811 A.2d 610, 620-21 (Pa. Super. 2002) (ambiguous conspiracy verdict resolved in defendant’s favor when lacking clear intent)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury must decide most sentencing-enhancing facts)
- Commonwealth v. Samuel, 599 Pa. 166, 961 A.2d 57 (2008) (no authority for special verdicts in criminal trials)