Commonwealth v. Rhoades
8 A.3d 912
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Rhoades and the victim shared an apartment in Lansdale, PA; after an argument the victim stayed with a friend and returned to discuss the relationship; Rhoades attacked the victim with fists, a riding crop, and a bottle during a brutal assault; he threatened to burn her eye, choked her with a cord and belt, threatened with a knife, and attempted to drown her in a bucket; he anal-raped her with a glass beer bottle, after which the victim escaped and called 911; Rhoades pled guilty to IDSI, two counts of aggravated assault, and several lesser offenses, with other charges nol prossed, and was sentenced to 15 to 40 years in prison; Rhoades appealed challenging the use of a deadly weapon enhancement, merger of aggravated assault counts, and mitigation considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deadly weapon enhancement applied to IDSI was proper | Rhoades argues the bottle was not a deadly weapon | Commonwealth argues the bottle was capable of producing serious injury under the statute | Yes, the enhancement properly applied to IDSI. |
| Whether the deadly weapon enhancement applied where the instrument was an element of IDSI | Glass bottle used for IDSI is an element, so enhancement should not apply | Enhancement can apply despite object being an element | No error; enhancement correctly applied to IDSI despite the bottle being an element. |
| Whether the two aggravated assault convictions should merge for sentencing | Counts 6 and 7 should merge since from the same conduct | Elements-based test precludes merger unless elements are identical | No merger; disparate elements mean no required merging. |
| Whether the sentence was unduly harsh given mitigating circumstances | Sentence was harsher than warranted considering mitigation | Court weighed mitigating factors and PSI; challenge to discretion is not meritorious | No substantial question; discretionary aspects affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa.Super.2004) (review of discretionary aspects requires a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa.Super.2005) (elements-based and substantial question standards for discretionary review)
- Commonwealth v. Kneller, 999 A.2d 608 (Pa.Super.2010) (deadly weapon enhancement as a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Hatcher, 746 A.2d 1142 (Pa.Super.2000) (deadly weapon enhancement considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Greene, 702 A.2d 547 (Pa.Super.1997) (deadly weapon enhancement considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 604 Pa. 34, 985 A.2d 830 (2009) (elements-based merger analysis for sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Ferrari, 406 Pa.Super. 12, 593 A.2d 846 (Pa.Super.1991) (merger principles when offense elements differ)
- Commonwealth v. Raybuck, 915 A.2d 125 (Pa.Super.2006) (use of nontraditional items as deadly weapons)
- Commonwealth v. Scullin, 414 Pa.Super. 442, 607 A.2d 750 (Pa.Super.1992) (deadly weapon determinations based on use)
- Commonwealth v. Cornish, 403 Pa.Super. 492, 589 A.2d 718 (Pa.Super.1991) (tire iron as deadly weapon; use-based analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 402 Pa.Super. 369, 587 A.2d 6 (Pa.Super.1991) (saw as deadly weapon; use-based)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa.Super.2010) (whether trial court considered mitigating factors in discretionary review)
- Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa.Super.2003) (substantial question when aggravated range sentencing without mitigating factors)