Commonwealth v. Lamonda
52 A.3d 365
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Lamonda was convicted by jury of two counts of homicide by vehicle from a crash involving a tractor-trailer he operated; the crash killed all occupants of another vehicle.
- Lamonda was also convicted of driving under the influence of cocaine and several summary offenses (leaving lane safely, unsafe speed, unlawful activity while driving).
- Judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 40 to 120 months’ imprisonment on July 22, 2009.
- Lamonda appealed contending: (1) insufficient evidence of homicide by vehicle; (2) equal protection violation from an enhanced HBV-DUI sentence; (3) discretionary-sentencing abuse; (4) aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.
- The court rejected the challenges, affirmed the sentence, and rejected all appellate claims except dissenting observations noted by a Justice in a concurrence/dissent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the HBV conviction supported by sufficient evidence? | Lamonda argues no motor-vehicle violation was proven. | Lamonda’s liability arose from driving a vehicle with a voluntary act shown by accident reconstruction. | No; sufficient evidence supported a motor-vehicle violation and thus HBV. |
| Does applying an enhanced HBV sentence due to DUI have a rational basis under equal protection? | Lamonda asserts no rational relation between DUI metabolite presence and HBV penalty. | Classification serves legitimate goal of discouraging DUI driving. | Yes; rational relation to deter DUI supports the enhancement. |
| Was the trial court's use of an 8-point offense gravity score for HBV-DUI improper? | Lamonda claims equal protection violation from higher score tied to DUI. | Guidelines authorize 8-point score for HBV concurrent with DUI. | No; no error in gravity score given equal protection analysis. |
| Was the aggregate sentence manifestly excessive or an abuse of discretion? | Lamonda asserts sentence is unduly harsh and not considering history/rehabilitation. | Sentence falls within guideline ranges and is not plainly unreasonable. | No; within guideline ranges; not manifestly excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency standard of review; inferences in favor of verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial evidence viable to sustain convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Stays, 40 A.3d 160 (Pa. Super. 2012) (recitation of sufficiency and standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Hilliar, 943 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2008) (equal protection; three categories of scrutiny; rational basis in third tier)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 895 A.2d 18 (Pa. Super. 2006) (review of discretionary sentencing; substantial question standard)
- Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203 (Pa. Super. 1998 (en banc)) (improper offense gravity score as substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consideration of factors beyond gravity; substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentencing within guideline ranges; consecutive vs concurrent)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (substantial question requirements for discretionary appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discretionary aspects of sentence must be appealed timely)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (Edmunds analysis; PA Constitution losses vs US Constitution)