Commonwealth v. Miklos
159 A.3d 962
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 10, 2014, Richard Didonato (Victim) was found shot on a North Side sidewalk; he identified his shooter as "Dave" before dying.
- Police recovered pills and cash from Victim; investigation led to David Miklos (Appellant), who was arrested in March 2014 and interviewed.
- Miklos admitted dealing pills with Victim and described a confrontation in which they struggled over Victim’s gun; Victim was shot during that struggle.
- Miklos testified he initially grabbed the gun to prevent being shot, that the gun discharged during the struggle, then he recovered the gun, fired a second shot, kept cash, and later discarded the gun and casings in woods.
- Appellant was convicted after a non-jury trial of persons not to possess a firearm (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105) and sentenced to 5–10 years; post-conviction relief was filed nunc pro tunc and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: was possession unlawful given claimed self-defense? | Commonwealth: proof established Appellant knowingly possessed a firearm and had a prior disqualifying conviction, and possession after the struggle was not justified. | Miklos: his possession was justified as necessary to avoid being shot; initial possession lacked criminal intent. | Affirmed — initial possession during struggle may be justified, but continued possession (recovering gun, firing second shot, keeping and later discarding it) was not justified; evidence sufficient. |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: verdict supported by record and witness testimony. | Miklos: verdict against weight given his self-defense claim. | Affirmed — trial court (non-jury) did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock sense of justice. |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence — harshness | Miklos: sentence too severe for the conduct. | Commonwealth: sentence within court's discretion. | Waived — claim not preserved at sentencing or in post‑sentence motion. |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence — consideration of rehabilitation | Miklos: court failed to adequately consider rehabilitative needs. | Commonwealth: court properly exercised discretion. | Rejected — does not present a substantial question for appellate review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Commonwealth, 72 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Markman v. Commonwealth, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Thomas v. Commonwealth, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements of § 6105 offense)
- Gross v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 28 (Pa. 2014) (possession is continuing conduct)
- Chamberlain v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (standard for appellate review of weight claims)
- Handfield v. Commonwealth, 34 A.3d 187 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse of discretion definition)
- Disalvo v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements and substantial-question test for discretionary-sentencing appeals)
- Tejada v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (preservation required for discretionary aspects claims)
- Downing v. Commonwealth, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (inadequate consideration of mitigating factors generally not a substantial question)
- Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claim that court weighed factors differently does not present substantial question)
- Moore v. United States, 733 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 2013) (driving away with allegedly acquired weapon can undermine necessity defense)