Commonwealth v. Phillips, 129 A.3d 513

Arthur Phillips was convicted by a jury of robbery, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit robbery, and flight to avoid apprehension.
Aggregate sentence: ten to twenty years for robbery, two to four years for aggravated assault, and one to two years each for conspiracy and flight, all consecutive, total fourteen to twenty-eight years.
Victim, a 63-year-old man, defended himself during a home-invasion with a firearm; appellant allegedly assaulted him with an AK-47 rifle and engaged in a struggle over weapons.
Police pursued fleeing occupants in a burgundy Buick; Phillips was apprehended after a foot chase; an AK-47 and gloves were recovered from the car.
The trial court denied post-sentence motions; Phillips appealed arguing sufficiency of flight to avoid apprehension, sufficiency of aggravated assault, and sentencing discretion.
On review, the Superior Court vacated the flight conviction for lack of evidence that Phillips had been charged when he fled and remanded for resentencing; affirmed the aggravated assault sufficiency; remand disturbed the entire sentencing scheme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether flight to avoid apprehension requires prior charging	Phillips: statute requires being charged when fleeing.	Phillips: no prior charge needed; relies on federal analogies.	Flight conviction reversed; insufficient evidence Phillips had been charged when he fled.
Whether evidence supports aggravated assault as to serious bodily injury	Phillips: no demonstrated serious bodily injury or intent to cause it.	Commonwealth: evidence of struggle, biting, broken bone shows intent to cause serious injury.	Sufficiency established; aggravated assault affirmed.
Whether the sentence was properly imposed in light of the challenged conviction	Phillips: trial court relied improperly on prior history and offense gravity.	Phillips: mitigating factors were not adequately considered.	Remand for resentencing; because flight conviction vacated, the sentencing structure is disturbed.

Commonwealth v. Steffy, 36 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2012) (statutory interpretation is a question of law; de novo review)
In the Interest of C.S., 63 A.3d 351 (Pa. Super. 2013) (statutory interpretation and construction considerations)
Fortune, 68 A.3d 980 (Pa. Super. 2013) (facts supporting attempted serious bodily injury under aggravated assault)
Janis, 583 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 1990) (escape statute and timing of charges; past tense language interpretation)
Commonwealth v. Bando, 244 F.2d 833 (2d Cir. 1957) (federal flight to avoid prosecution; charged status not element in some contexts)
United States v. Frank, 864 F.2d 992 (3d Cir. 1988) (federal flight statute interpretation; distinguishes from state wording)
Commonwealth v. Graham, 9 A.3d 196 (Pa. 2010) (strict interpretation of criminal statutes; favor defendant when doubt exists)
Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (admissibility and sufficiency review; standard of review)