Commonwealth v. Smith, 69 A.3d 259

Appellant Bruce Smith was convicted by a jury of criminal conspiracy, fleeing or eluding, three REAP counts, and accident involving damage to unattended vehicle.
The incident stemmed from a dispute over the murder of Appellant’s cousin Melvin Johnson; Appellant joined the Hopkins brothers and Little Hodge in a plan to find and assault Withrow.
The group traveled in a white SUV, encountered Withrow, shots were fired, and William Hopkins was wounded; the SUV fled and later police pursued it.
Appellant drove the SUV during the pursuit, and DNA from the SUV matched William Hopkins, connecting Appellant to the crime.
At sentencing, the court berated Appellant and refused to allow him to counsel or explain his rights; a restitution of $1,000 was imposed.
Appellant timely appealed; the trial court issued a 1925(a) opinion; the Superior Court vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing due to issues about counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to counsel at sentencing	Smith argues his right to counsel at sentencing was violated.	Court contends no error or clear invocation of right to counsel.	Remand for proper inquiry on right to counsel or self-representation; judgment of sentence vacated.
Restitution amount and process	Restitution was speculative, not tailored to ability to pay, and lacked record support.	Restitution amount and method were appropriate.	Moot due to remand; noted restitution should be tied to proof of ability to pay and record support on remand.
Sufficiency of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault	Evidence showed shared intent and overt acts sufficient for conspiracy.	Smith argues no agreement or shared intent existed.	Evidence sufficient to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sufficiency of evidence for damage to unattended vehicle	Chase and damage during pursuit supported the charge.	Evidence was weak and insufficient.	Sufficient evidence, viewed in light most favorable to the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2000) (elements of conspiracy include agreement, shared intent, and overt act)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778 (Pa. Super. 1998) (conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances and acts)
Commonwealth v. El, 977 A.2d 1158 (Pa. 2009) (Faretta-based right to self-representation and due inquiry)
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 121 inquiry required for timely, unequivocal requests)
Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (Faretta waiver requirements and on-the-record colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Davido, 868 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2005) (adequacy of Faretta-based waiver inquiry standards)
Commonwealth v. Knapp, 542 A.2d 546 (Pa. 1988) (appointing counsel standards; good cause requirement)
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (right to counsel; indigent defendant's right to counsel of choice)
Commonwealth v. Rosciolo, 296 A.2d 852 (Pa. 1972) (constitutional right to counsel at sentencing)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing waiver)
Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1967) (right to counsel during sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Booth, N/A (N/A) (placeholder to indicate inclusion of referenced context)