Commonwealth v. Spenny
128 A.3d 234
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Spenny pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery of a financial institution and received consecutive 45–90 month terms (Oct. 15, 2014).
- The PSI included multiple prior convictions from New York, Arizona, and federal convictions for bank robberies; Probation later amended the PSI on document review.
- Trial court found Spenny a "repeat felony offender" (RFEL) based on its grading of several out-of-state prior convictions as F2s and imposed the sentence accordingly.
- Spenny moved for reconsideration, arguing that some out-of-state offenses were graded too high and some prior sentences ran concurrently; probation corrected some entries but trial court denied relief.
- On appeal, this Court reviewed whether the trial court mis-scored out-of-state priors (and thus erred in RFEL designation), concluding the court had improperly graded New York and Arizona convictions and misapplied guideline rules.
Issues
| Issue | Spenny's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly graded prior out-of-state convictions when computing prior record score and RFEL status | New York robbery convictions are equivalent to PA robbery §3701(a)(1)(v) (F3); Arizona armed-robbery must be graded by statutory maximum and is not equivalent to PA F2 bank-robbery | Many priors (NY and AZ, plus federal bank robbery) were properly equivalent to PA bank-robbery (F2) and support RFEL | Court held NY robbery convictions are F3 equivalents (not F2); Arizona armed-robbery treated by max-penalty method and scored as F3; trial court erred in RFEL finding; remand for recalculation and resentencing |
| Whether sentencing court should consider factual record of prior convictions to determine equivalent Pennsylvania offense | Courts may look at underlying facts to grade an out-of-state conviction | Equivalent offense can be a PA subsection matching the conduct (Commonwealth argued facts show bank robberies) | Court held equivalency is an elements-based comparison (Bolden test); underlying facts may be used only for grading/aggravation after elemental match is made |
| Whether concurrent prior sentences at a single proceeding should be counted separately in prior score | Some priors were imposed concurrently at the same sentencing and thus should not be separately scored | Trial court treated certain priors as separately countable | Court applied §303.5(b) and Janda: when multiple convictions at one sentencing proceeding, only the most serious (and any consecutives) count; trial court misapplied this rule |
| Whether RFEL designation stands absent NY priors | RFEL stands because other priors (federal, Arizona) suffice | RFEL supported by multiple F2/FI priors | Court found remaining includable priors (federal bank robbery and Arizona) did not produce six F2/FI points; RFEL designation unsupported without NY convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bolden, 532 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. 1987) (establishes elements-based test for determining Pennsylvania equivalent of out-of-state convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Shaw, 744 A.2d 739 (Pa. 2000) (applies Bolden test and rejects equivalency where statutory elements differ)
- Commonwealth v. Northrip, 985 A.2d 734 (Pa. 2009) (limits factual inquiry for equivalency where statute specifies the subsection; emphasizes elemental comparison)
- Commonwealth v. Janda, 14 A.3d 147 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prior-score rule: when multiple convictions are sentenced at one proceeding, only most serious and any consecutive sentences count)