Commonwealth v. McCauley
199 A.3d 947
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Anthony McCauley was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against a child and originally sentenced to an aggregate 20 to 40 years' imprisonment.
- On direct appeal Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded because the record was unclear whether the trial court had imposed a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718; Superior Court instructed the trial court to either (a) resentence without a mandatory minimum if it had applied § 9718, or (b) re-impose the original sentence if no mandatory minimum had been applied.
- At the remand hearing the trial court stated it had not applied § 9718 but nevertheless imposed a slightly modified aggregate sentence (20 years less two days to 40 years less four days) after a very brief hearing.
- McCauley filed a post-sentence motion and a motion for recusal alleging the judge was biased against defense counsel and the Public Defender’s Office; the trial court denied both motions and issued a critical Rule 1925(a) Opinion that contained disparaging remarks about defense counsel.
- Superior Court reviewed the record, found substantial evidence of the trial judge’s personal animus toward defense counsel and repeated failures to follow remand instructions and sentencing procedures, vacated the judgment of sentence, ordered reassignment of resentencing to a different judge, and remanded with instructions.
Issues
| Issue | McCauley’s Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge should have recused herself for bias | Judge’s statements and opinion display animus toward defense counsel and PD Office, creating appearance of bias | Denied recusal; trial court defended its actions in Opinion | Vacated sentence and ordered recusal—record shows personal animus raising substantial doubt about impartiality |
| Whether trial court complied with Superior Court remand instructions | Trial court disobeyed mandate by imposing a new sentence instead of re-imposing original sentence when it stated § 9718 was not applied | Trial court re-sentenced and adjusted days without following mandate | Trial court failed to follow mandate; remand required for proper resentencing by a new judge |
| Whether original sentencing used mandatory minimum under § 9718 | McCauley argued mandatory minimum may have been applied; required clarification on remand | Trial court declared it did not apply § 9718 but nonetheless altered sentence | Superior Court found inconsistent record and inadequate compliance with remand; resentencing required |
| Whether resentencing complied with statutory/constitutional sentencing procedures | Argued resentencing was brief, lacked PSI, allocution, reasons on record, guideline consideration, and statutory factor analysis | Trial court conducted abbreviated hearing and offered no recorded statutory analysis | Sentencing hearing violated statutory and due process norms; vacated and remanded for full resentencing by new judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (due process requires recusal when risk of actual bias exists)
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2016) (circumstances creating unacceptable risk of judicial bias violate due process)
- Commonwealth v. Watkins, 108 A.3d 692 (Pa. 2014) (party seeking recusal must produce evidence raising substantial doubt about judge's impartiality)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (rulings against a defendant do not alone establish bias)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 173 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2017) (framework for SVP designation addressed; impacted registration/designation issues)
- Commonwealth v. Null, 186 A.3d 424 (Pa. Super. 2018) (trial court must strictly comply with appellate mandate; failure may warrant recusal and vacatur)