Commonwealth v. Jannett
58 A.3d 818
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Albert Michael Jannett was convicted in a non-jury trial of three counts of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(h).
- Between February 4 and February 19, 2011, Jannett robbed three Bucks County banks by delivering notes claiming a gun and demanding cash, with no gun actually present.
- In each robbery, tellers complied and cash was handed over; Jannett left after each crime.
- He was sentenced on April 30, 2012 to concurrent 10–20 year terms on each count, plus a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a)(1) as a second crime of violence.
- On appeal, Jannett raised two primarily legal issues: sufficiency of the evidence under § 3701(a)(1)(ii) versus § 3701(a)(1)(vi), and the § 9714 sentencing in light of alleged lack of a qualifying crime of violence.
- The court affirmed the judgment of sentence, rejecting both arguments and noting waiver of an unraised § 3701(a)(1)(iv) claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 3701(a)(1)(ii) or § 3701(a)(1)(vi) | Jannett argues the acts align more with § 3701(a)(1)(vi) than (ii). | Commonwealth contends § (ii) offense stands despite § (vi) having been added. | Evidence supports § 3701(a)(1)(ii); (vi) does not displace (ii). |
| Sentencing under § 9714(a)(1) based on violence conviction | Sentence improper if the conviction isn’t a violence crime. | Because § 3701(a)(1)(ii) is satisfied, the § 9714 sentence stands. | No reversible error; argument rejected as the § 3701(a)(1)(ii) conviction is valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency standard and review of element proof)
- Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546 (Pa. Super. 2003) (interpretation of robbery elements and standards)
- Commonwealth v. Milano, 446 A.2d 325 (Pa. Super. 1982) (statutory interpretive presumptions against repeal)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (robbery threats can be nonverbal; focus on threat level to victim)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 831 A.2d 661 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency where suspect produced object to threaten clerk)
- Commonwealth v. Hurd, 407 A.2d 418 (Pa. Super. 1979) (sufficiency of threat-based robbery conviction)