Commonwealth v. McLaine
150 A.3d 70
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- McLaine and co-defendant Kearns ran Municipal Energy Managers, contracted to facilitate Bethlehem Township’s purchase of streetlights; township paid $832,460 as a commencement payment that was deposited into MEM’s general account.
- MEM delayed performance, did not timely pay PPL for the transfer, and defendants wrote large checks to themselves; township never received the benefits and incurred interest and ongoing financial harm.
- A jury convicted McLaine of theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received; the trial court initially graded the offense as a third-degree felony, then reduced it to a third-degree misdemeanor after an Apprendi-based challenge to the verdict form.
- After regrading, the trial court sentenced McLaine to 6–12 months’ incarceration, a 12-month probation tail (later found illegal by the Superior Court because it pushed the aggregate beyond the misdemeanor statutory maximum), a $2,500 fine, and restitution of $832,460.
- On remand for resentencing limited to the probation length, the trial court eliminated the probation tail but kept the 6–12 month upward-departure incarceration term; McLaine appealed, arguing illegality and abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (McLaine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of resentencing after regrading | Trial court may reinstate a statutory-maximum incarceration term within limits; removing probation complies with remand | Reinstating an upward-departure custodial term after regrading required additional fact-finding and violates Apprendi principles | Held: No illegality. Court had discretion to impose an upward departure within statutory limits; Apprendi not implicated because sentencing discretion remained intact |
| Discretionary aspects: upward departure from guideline range | Court justified upward departure based on victim impact, magnitude of deception, lack of restitution, and community harm | McLaine argued court originally found no aggravating factors on the record and failed to state reasons at resentencing | Held: No abuse of discretion. Trial court incorporated its prior detailed sentencing record and provided factual basis for departure |
| Adequacy of reasons on record at resentencing | Prior sentencing hearing contained victim statements, PSR, letters, and explicit rationale for upward departure | McLaine argued resentencing did not restate those reasons on record and thus lacked sufficient justification | Held: Incorporation of prior record was proper; reasons were on the record and satisfied Griffin principles |
| Consideration of mitigating factors | Commonwealth argued aggravating facts warranted departure despite mitigation | McLaine argued mitigating evidence (community service, allocution, no prior record) required restorative sanctions | Held: Court considered mitigation but reasonably concluded restitution absence, large financial harm, and defendants’ conduct justified incarceration |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (judicial fact-finding that increases penalty beyond the jury verdict is unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing discretionary claims)
- Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedural requisites to invoke appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (trial court must state reasons on the record when departing from guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. 2001) (guidelines advisory; courts may deviate for protection of public and gravity of offense)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (when a challenge sufficiently articulates how a sentence violates sentencing norms, it may present a substantial question)