Commonwealth v. Williams
69 A.3d 735
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Appellant Sherdina Williams pleaded open to seven burglary-related counts stemming from thefts from Catholic institutions in 2001.
- Judge Fitzgerald imposed concurrent 11.5–23 month terms and 10 years’ probation for each burglary count, later paroled to Beacon House.
- Appellant violated probation multiple times, including armed assault and additional burglaries, leading to revocation proceedings and various sentences.
- In 2011, Judge Wogan revoked probation and sentenced Williams to 290–580 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to a Montgomery County sentence of 7–20 years.
- Williams challenged the discretionary aspects of the sentence and sought recusal due to appearance of bias by the sentencing judge.
- The Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding the sentence manifestly excessive and the process biased.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the VOP sentence manifestly excessive and an abuse of discretion? | Williams argues the 24–48 year term is disproportionate to the offenses and recidivism. | The court appropriately weighed 9721(b) factors and justified escalation due to recidivism. | Yes; sentence deemed manifestly excessive and an abuse of discretion; remand for resentencing. |
| Did the trial court's comments create an appearance of bias requiring recusal? | Bias and improper questioning showed appearance of prejudice against Williams. | Recusal denial was proper; bias did not mandate disqualification. | Bias evident; but recusal denial affirmed; nonetheless remand for resentencing proceeds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (establishes review framework for sentences after probation revocation; deference to trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (substantial question standard for discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (limits guidelines application after revocation of probation)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (limitations on post-revocation total confinement sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104 (Pa. 2004) (discusses appearance of bias in sentencing context)
- Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (recusal standards based on appearance of impartiality)