Commonwealth v. Phillips
141 A.3d 512
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On December 22, 2011, police responded to a 911 call; officers found Jasmine Matthews injured and Appellant Tabu Phillips nearby. A .32 revolver was recovered from the bedroom and Phillips was found wearing a Kevlar vest with .32 caliber ammunition. Phillips was charged with Persons Not to Possess Firearm (18 Pa.C.S. §6105), Unlawful Body Armor (18 Pa.C.S. §907(c)), and Simple Assault.
- Phillips was convicted at his first trial while representing himself; this Court vacated that conviction and remanded because the trial court’s waiver-of-counsel colloquies were inadequate. Commonwealth v. Phillips, 93 A.3d 847 (Pa. Super. 2014).
- At the retrial Phillips again waived counsel after a November 13, 2014 on-the-record colloquy and was permitted to proceed pro se with standby counsel appointed; the trial court denied his suppression motion. A second colloquy occurred immediately before jury selection on March 11, 2015.
- The jury convicted Phillips of the two possession offenses; the court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling six to fourteen years. Phillips appealed, raising (inter alia) claims about the adequacy and scope of the waiver colloquies and the admissibility/relevance of out-of-court statements by Matthews (911 call and statements to officers).
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding: (1) Rule 121 does not require advising a pro se defendant of sentencing guidelines (only the permissible range of sentences); (2) a valid waiver remains effective through subsequent proceedings absent revocation or a substantial change in circumstances, so no new colloquy was required before the motion in limine; and (3) Phillips waived his Rule 404(b) (prior bad acts) objection by not raising it below or in his Rule 1925(b) statement and waived a relevance argument by not developing it in his appellate brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Phillips) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 121 required advising of sentencing guidelines before accepting waiver of counsel | Rule 121’s requirement to inform of the permissible range of sentences includes advising of the sentencing guidelines applicable to the case | Rule 121 only requires informing the defendant of the permissible range of sentences/fines; it does not mandate advising of sentencing guidelines | Rule: Not required to advise of sentencing guidelines; plain language of Rule 121 satisfied by advising permissible range of sentences |
| Whether the court had to re-conduct a full waiver-of-counsel colloquy before the motion in limine/other critical stages | The motion in limine was a critical stage and a new colloquy was required before proceeding pro se there | A competent waiver previously obtained remains effective through subsequent proceedings absent revocation or a substantial change in circumstances | Rule: Once a valid waiver is made, it continues unless defendant revokes or there is a substantial change; no re-colloquy required here (no change or revocation shown) |
| Admissibility of Matthews’s out-of-court statements as improper evidence of prior bad acts under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | The 911 call and on-scene statements were prior-bad-act evidence and should have been excluded | At trial objections were made only on relevance/hearsay grounds; 404(b) objection was not raised below or in Rule 1925(b) | Held: Prior-bad-acts claim waived for appellate review because it was not preserved below or pled in Rule 1925(b) |
| Relevance/prejudicial effect of the 911 call and on-scene statements given prior acquittal on assault | The statements were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because Phillips had been acquitted of assault at the first trial and detailed assault evidence was unnecessary | Trial record showed at least minimal relevance; relevance objection was raised below but not developed on appeal | Held: Relevance claim waived on appeal for failure to develop argument in brief; trial court’s admission not reviewed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tyler, 360 A.2d 617 (Pa. 1976) (defendant must knowingly and intelligently waive right to counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Monica, 597 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 1991) (presumption against waiver; record must show informed rejection of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. McDonough, 812 A.2d 504 (Pa. 2002) (waiver colloquy must show defendant’s ability to understand questions)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 959 A.2d 910 (Pa. 2008) (standard of review for interpreting criminal procedural rules)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 464 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 1983) (discusses colloquy at critical stages; declined to decide whether re-colloquy required at every stage)
- Davis v. United States, 226 F.2d 834 (8th Cir. 1955) (adopted ongoing-waiver rule: prior valid waiver remains effective absent change in circumstances)
- United States v. Unger, 915 F.2d 759 (1st Cir. 1990) (prior waiver carries over to subsequent proceedings absent intervening events)
- Arnold v. United States, 414 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1969) (no automatic re-colloquy required unless defendant’s actions or requests trigger a new inquiry)
- State v. Mathis, 159 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1968) (valid waiver continues unless defendant withdraws it or presumption interrupted)