Commonwealth v. Simmons
56 A.3d 1280
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Ernest Simmons appeals probation-revocation judgment for violating condition refraining from assaultive behavior.
- Threats to kill Derek Henderson and feed him to pigs were made by Simmons at hospital and via text; threats were not first-hand communicated to Henderson.
- Probation included condition 5(c): refrain from assaultive behavior; prior convictions included first-degree murder and later plea to third-degree murder.
- Violation hearing occurred January 2011 with continuances to February 2011; hospital personnel and text evidence presented.
- Commonwealth showed threats were communicated to others (paramour and hospital staff), and that threats evidenced assaultive behavior under the broad parole/probation standard.
- Trial court sentenced Simmons to six months to ten years following revocation; Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether threats not communicated to the victim sufficed as assaultive behavior | Simmons argues no communication to Henderson; no action to implement threats. | Commonwealth contends making threats fulfills assaultive behavior under broadened standard. | Sufficiency of evidence supports violation; threats alone can constitute assaultive behavior. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by sua sponte continuing the hearing | Simmons was prejudiced by delay and lack of direct communication evidence. | Court acted within discretion to ensure proper proof; delay was limited and non-prejudicial. | No abuse; issue waived due to lack of prejudice and proper continuance rationale. |
| Whether the sentence following revocation was manifestly excessive | Sentence concentrated on probation violation, not individualized factors. | Sentence within the original maximum; discretion properly exercised. | Sentence within maximum; discretionary claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 33 A.3d 31 (Pa.Super.2011) (standard for revocation burden of proof preponderance of the evidence)
- Malarik v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 25 A.3d 468 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (assaultive behavior broader than crime; threats can violate probation)
- Jackson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 885 A.2d 598 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (assaultive behavior includes threats not directly communicated to victim)
- Moore v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 505 A.2d 1366 (Pa.Cmwlth.1986) (verbal threats can constitute assaultive behavior)
- Christmas, 995 A.2d 1259 (Pa.Super.2010) (continuances in revocation hearings balanced against fairness)
- MacGregor v. Commonwealth, 912 A.2d 315 (Pa.Super.2006) (review limited to validity of revocation and sentencing authority)
- Hoch v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa.Super.2007) (discretionary aspects of sentencing require substantial question)
- Flowers v. Commonwealth, 950 A.2d 330 (Pa.Super.2008) (criteria for substantial question in discretionary review)