Commonwealth v. McNeal
120 A.3d 313
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- McNeal pled guilty in 2005 to robbery; sentenced to 2.5–5 years, followed by 5 years’ probation.
- In 2011 McNeal was charged with burglary, trespass, criminal mischief, and attempted theft, with potential probation-violation implications.
- Trial before Judge Wogan in 2013 featured repeated plea-offer negotiations by the court and defense; Wogan urged pleas and discussed terms that included probation consequences.
- Jury trial in April 2013 yielded not guilty verdicts on all charged offenses; the criminal mischief charge was reduced to a summary offense for a judge-only verdict.
- At sentencing, Wogan admitted considering a letter from McNeal not admitted into evidence; the letter suggested burglary evidence, and Wogan used this dehors-the-record information to convict McNeal on the summary mischief charge.
- The Superior Court vacated the judgments of sentence and remanded for new proceedings, finding error in the court’s taking over another judge’s probation case and other serious improprieties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse Rule 700 by taking over another judge’s probation case without the parties’ consent? | McNeal argues Wogan improperly assumed control of the probation case. | Wogan and Commonwealth contend no Rule 700 violation or waiver; transfer was permissible. | Yes; reversal and new probation-violation hearing required. |
| Was the probation violation based on an illegal underlying conviction or improper basis? | McNeal contends the probation violation rests on an invalid conviction. | Court considered proper bases for probation; underlying conviction not independently illegal. | Vacatur of related convictions and probation sentence warranted; issues moot after remand. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence after faulty proceedings? | Sentence was manifestly excessive and tainted by improprieties. | Court acted within discretion given the probation-violation context. | Remand for new proceedings; the district court vacated the challenged sentence. |
| Did the court err by relying on dehors-the-record evidence (McNeal’s letter) to convict on the summary offense? | Use of letter not admitted at trial violated evidentiary rules. | Court could rely on information within the record; letter notwithstanding. | Error; conviction vacated due to dehors-the-record reliance. |
| Did the prosecutor abuse discretion in reducing the mischief charge to a summary offense? | McNeal argues it was a collusive maneuver with the judge to secure a probation violation. | Prosecutor vested with discretion to charge and prosecute; bifurcation permissible. | No abuse of prosecutorial discretion; bifurcation allowed; no double jeopardy issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fish, 752 A.2d 921 (Pa. Super. 2000) (probation revocation review focuses on trial court authority and discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 669 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 1996) (probation-revocation sentencing discretion; standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Koren, 646 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 1994) (judicial-presence considerations in sentencing; Rule 700 emphasis)
- Commonwealth v. Amundsen, 611 A.2d 309 (Pa. Super. 1992) (bifurcated proceedings and admissibility of offense within procedure rules)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (prosecutorial charging discretion and permissible variance in charging decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prosecutorial discretion and notice in amendments to charges)
- Commonwealth v. States, 938 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2007) (collateral estoppel and double jeopardy in criminal context; one-off inconsistency allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Petteway, 847 A.2d 713 (Pa. Super. 2004) (inconsistent verdicts are permissible in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Wasiuta, 421 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 1980) (court may not rely on evidence dehors the record)