Commonwealth v. Poland
26 A.3d 518
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Poland was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; he was acquitted of other charges.
- Poland received a sentence of 11% to 23 months’ house arrest followed by seven years of probation on January 20, 2010.
- The Commonwealth timely appealed challenging the legality of the sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9713(a).
- Poland's cross appeal was filed nunc pro tunc with court approval; the Commonwealth moved to quash the cross appeal.
- The trial court found the offense occurred in a location not covered by § 9713(a) and thus not subject to the mandatory minimum; the Commonwealth challenged that interpretation.
- The appellate court held that § 9713(a) applies to crimes committed in the immediate vicinity of public transportation facilities and vacated the sentence for resentencing consistent with the mandatory minimum five-year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Commonwealth’s appeal challenge an illegal sentence under § 9713(a)? | Commonwealth argues five-year minimum applies. | Poland argues § 9713(a) does not apply. | Yes; sentence vacated and remanded for five-year minimum. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove Poland conspired with others to assault Tazwell? | Commonwealth contends sufficient involvement and unity of purpose. | Poland contends no implicit agreement shown. | Sufficient; conspiracy proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Did the trial court commit error by not sua sponte instructing on good character evidence or was counsel ineffective for not requesting it? | Not explicitly stated. | Poland asserts error or ineffectiveness. | No error; not preserved for direct appeal; ineffective assistance not reviewable on direct appeal. |
| Did Rule 1701(a) divest the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain Poland’s cross appeal nunc pro tunc? | Commonwealth asserts divestiture limits cross appeal. | Poland contends court retained jurisdiction for nunc pro tunc cross appeal. | Rule 1701(c) allows jurisdiction to remain for disputes on pending appeal; petition not quashed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (sufficiency and legal standards for criminal convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Mears, 972 A.2d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2009) (review of illegal sentence and statutory interpretation)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 543 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 1988) (interpretation of § 9713 and public transportation context)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 453 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1982) (conspiracy proof standards; no implicit agreement shown in Kennedy)
- Commonwealth v. French, 578 A.2d 1292 (Pa. Super. 1990) (concert of action and unity of purpose sufficient for conspiracy)