Commonwealth v. Schrader
141 A.3d 558
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Edward Schrader pled guilty to two counts of indecent assault: one against step-granddaughter E.C. (fondling while she slept) and one against younger sister S.C.; sentenced April 29, 2015 to an aggregate 1 year 8 months to 6 years imprisonment.
- A pre-sentence SOAB assessment was waived by Schrader; sentencing was postponed when evidence of additional molestation of S.C. emerged.
- At sentencing the court referenced an expunged 1983 ARD for a related sexual offense; court imposed aggravated-range sentences (one to three years; consecutive eight months to three years).
- On August 11, 2015 the trial court held an SVP (sexually violent predator) hearing and designated Schrader an SVP.
- Schrader appealed raising: (1) improper consideration of expunged ARD at sentencing, (2) error in imposing aggravated-range sentence, (3) error in SVP designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment of sentence was final before post-sentence SVP determination (timeliness) | SVP determination is collateral; sentence final at sentencing | Schrader argued sentencing issues should be timely from final incarceration sentence | Court: Where defendant waives pre-sentence SVP assessment, judgment of sentence is not final until SVP determination; appeals timely as to SVP and sentencing issues |
| Whether sentencing court improperly considered expunged ARD from 1983 | Commonwealth: court may consider relevant unprosecuted/expunged conduct and character evidence | Schrader: ARD was expunged; court should not consider it or must apply CHRIA balancing test | Court: CHRIA balancing inapplicable (no expungement request); court may consider relevant unprosecuted/expunged conduct; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether aggravated-range sentence was improper (failure to consider mitigation) | Commonwealth: court addressed mitigating factors and explained sentence | Schrader: court failed to consider lack of criminal history, age, remorse, cooperation | Court: Claim waived for lack of post-sentence motion; record shows court considered mitigating factors; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether SVP designation was improper (reliance on facts outside record or expert weight) | Commonwealth: assessment and testimony supported SVP designation | Schrader: Commonwealth expert relied on alleged repeated abuse not reflected in plea; defense expert more persuasive | Court: Schrader waived evidentiary objections by not objecting at trial; court properly weighed experts and found Commonwealth met clear-and-convincing standard; SVP affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whanger, 30 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discusses pre-sentence SVP assessment waiver and related appellate timing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2009) (SVP order is collateral consequence but SVP assessment can affect finality and sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sentence not final where plea/agreement contemplates later determination such as restitution)
- Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court may consider uncounted prior conduct when prior record score is inadequate)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to object at trial forfeits challenge to admission of evidence later relied upon in SVP determination)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (improper consideration of uncharged conduct raises substantial question for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 894 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sentencing is discretionary and will not be overturned absent manifest abuse of discretion)