Commonwealth v. Solomon
151 A.3d 672
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2012 appellant Melvin Solomon led police on a high-speed pursuit (excess of 80 mph) from Pittsburgh through surrounding boroughs and stopped in a Verona alley.
- Officers Baker and Schutz exited their marked cruiser (stopped ~15 feet behind appellant). Solomon then put his SUV in reverse and drove toward the officers through an ~8-foot opening.
- Officer Schutz feared being run over and fired at the rear of the SUV; Officer Baker also fired as the vehicle exited the alley. Solomon was later identified as the driver.
- Solomon pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, fleeing/attempting to elude, reckless endangerment, driving without a license, and unsafe speed; sentenced to 7.5–15 years for aggravated assault plus probation for other counts.
- On appeal from reinstated appellate rights via PCRA, Solomon challenged the application of the Deadly Weapon Enhancement (DWE) at sentencing, arguing the Commonwealth did not prove use/possession of a firearm or other deadly weapon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Solomon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Deadly Weapon Enhancement applies | The SUV, when driven directly at an officer through a narrow opening and within close range, qualified as a deadly weapon because it was used in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury | Reversing was for flight or to avoid being shot; no proof of a firearm/dangerous weapon—vehicle use did not justify DWE | DWE applies: vehicle was an instrumentality capable of producing death/serious injury when used to drive at an officer; sentencing court correctly applied enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kneller, 999 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary-sentencing challenges implicate appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (no appeal as of right for discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part gateway test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) requirement for sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (limits on sentencing challenges to exceptional cases)
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (application of deadly weapon enhancement presents a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Hoch, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sentencing discretion principles)
- Commonwealth v. Magnum, 654 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Super. 1995) (court must apply DWE when appropriate; failure requires remand)
- Commonwealth v. Raybuck, 915 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. 2006) (objects not normally deadly may be deadly based on use)
- Commonwealth v. Scullin, 607 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 1992) (definition of deadly weapon includes items used in a manner likely to produce serious injury)
- Commonwealth v. Cornish, 589 A.2d 718 (Pa. Super. 1991) (ordinary objects can become deadly weapons depending on use)