Commonwealth v. Nero
58 A.3d 802
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Nero Jr. was convicted at trial of multiple chop shop-related offenses and sentenced to 64 to 124 months.
- PCRA petition filed June 1, 2010; initially denied without a hearing.
- On appeal, this Court vacated the denial and remanded for new counsel due to conflict of interest.
- New counsel filed an amended PCRA petition on April 25, 2011; petition dismissed June 6, 2011.
- This Court previously found two issues potentially arguable: Brady violation and legality of sentence, and remanded for a hearing.
- Upon remand, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on Brady and dismissed the petition on all remanded issues; Nero appealed again.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court merged counts for sentencing | Nero argues chop shop-illegally obtained/altered property counts merge with receiving stolen property counts. | Commonwealth argues elements differ; no merger under 9765 and Blockburger test. | No merger; no illegal sentence |
| Whether there was a Brady violation based on undisclosed leniency talks with codefendant | Nero contends the Commonwealth promised leniency to Black and withheld that to his trial. | Commonwealth asserts no enforceable agreement; evidence shows no pre-trial deal. | No Brady violation; PCRA court credibility determinations upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Quintua, 56 A.3d 399 (Pa.Super.2012) (merger analysis under 9765 and Blockburger framework)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 604 Pa. 34, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa.2009) (elements-based merger not allowed when both offenses have distinct elements)
- Commonwealth v. Wade, 33 A.3d 108 (Pa.Super.2011) (merger doctrine under Pa. merger statute; double jeopardy considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 874 A.2d 66 (Pa.Super.2005) (elements comparison for greater/lesser included offenses)