Commonwealth v. Postie
110 A.3d 1034
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Fredrick Postie was convicted after a bench trial of DWOPS (driving while operating privilege suspended or revoked, his 20th) and false reports; court sentenced him immediately to a flat four months in state prison, consecutive to another unrelated state sentence.
- Earlier, Postie entered a guilty plea to habitual offender and false identification in April 2012 in exchange for withdrawal of the DWOPS charge, then withdrew that plea; the Commonwealth reinstated the DWOPS charge thereafter.
- Postie filed suppression and recusal motions after a vehicle stop for alleged illegal window tint; the trial court denied both motions following two-day suppression hearings where Trooper McDaniel testified he could not see into the rear windows and had warned the vehicle owner about tinting months earlier.
- At trial the trooper was the sole witness; Postie did not testify. The court found him guilty of both counts and imposed the flat four-month sentence for DWOPS.
- On appeal Postie (pro se) raised six issues: trial judge recusal, suppression denial, biased remarks by the court, improper reinstatement of a withdrawn DWOPS charge, illegality of a “flat” sentence (no min/max), and ordering service of the sentence in state prison.
- The Superior Court affirmed most rulings but held the flat four-month sentence violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756 (requiring minimum and maximum terms for total confinement) and remanded for resentencing; it also directed the trial court to specify where the new sentence will be served under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Postie) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of trial judge | Judge previously heard plea and suppression testimony (including admissions) and therefore was biased | Mere prior participation does not require recusal absent specific evidence of inability to be impartial; remarks/admissions were not inadmissible or highly prejudicial | Denied — no abuse of discretion; judge capable of impartiality |
| Suppression of evidence from vehicle stop | Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion: did not measure tint, issued no citation that day, inconsistent testimony about visibility | Trooper credibly testified he previously warned the vehicle owner and on the stop could not see into rear windows, giving articulable suspicion under totality of circumstances | Denied — factual findings supported and legal conclusion correct |
| Reinstatement of DWOPS after plea withdrawal | Commonwealth breached plea bargain by later reinstating DWOPS; court should not allow reinstatement | Prior to entry of plea, defendant has no right to specific performance; after withdrawal Commonwealth may pursue charges and new charges exposed defendant to equal or lesser penalties | Denied — no relief; reinstatement permissible after plea withdrawal |
| Legality and situs of sentence (flat term and state prison) | Four-month flat sentence without min/max is illegal; also challenges serving summary sentence in state prison | Commonwealth argued Vehicle Code created exception permitting flat mandatory term and confinement in DOC | Held in part: Flat four-month sentence illegal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756; vacated and remanded for resentencing to specify min/max and state where sentence to be served consistent with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762(f) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for review of trial court's refusal to recuse)
- Commonwealth v. Lott, 581 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 1990) (prior judicial participation not per se recusal; admissibility and prejudice guide decision)
- Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 992 A.2d 897 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings and reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Klingensmith, 650 A.2d 444 (Pa. Super. 1994) (statutory-construction principle: specific provisions prevail over general sentencing statute)
- Commonwealth v. Destephano, 87 A.3d 361 (Pa. Super. 2014) (statutory interpretation and application of sentencing statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Milhomme, 35 A.3d 1219 (Pa. Super. 2011) (flat sentence for total confinement illegal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756)