Commonwealth v. Riggs
63 A.3d 780
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant was convicted by the court on DUI, Possession of Marijuana, three counts of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, three counts of Aggravated Assault, and three counts of Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While Driving Under the Influence.
- Sentence: 12 to 30 years in prison, with 4 to 10 years on each aggravated assault count, and concurrent or partially concurrent terms for other offenses.
- The incident central to the appeal occurred July 19, 2009, when a high-speed crash injured three victims and left one comatose.
- Witnesses described appellant fleeing the scene after the crash; marijuana was found on appellant and his blood tested positive for marijuana.
- The Commonwealth presented 404(b) evidence of prior high-speed chases and fleeing from police to support sustained recklessness.
- Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault and the discretionary aspects of sentencing on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault | Appellant: insufficient mens rea for aggravated assault. | Appellant: no sustained recklessness established. | Evidence supported malice and sustained recklessness; conviction affirmed. |
| Discretionary sentencing review | Appellant: sentence is manifestly excessive; court failed to consider sentencing criteria. | Appellant: court appropriately considered criteria and imposed reasonable sentence. | No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and not manifestly excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa.Super.2011) (sets standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 955 A.2d 419 (Pa.Super.2008) (recklessness and flight can show malice in aggravated assault)
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa.Super.2008) (no automatic right to discretionary sentencing appeal; substantial question required)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419 (2002) (establishes substantial question standard for sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 592 Pa. 557 (2007) (standard for determining manifest excessiveness in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 720 A.2d 764 (Pa.Super.1998) (trial court demeanor and consideration of factors in sentencing)