Topic: Sentencing – Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent
Summary: A sentencing court may not use a defendant’s silence as its sole reason for enhancing a sentence. Additionally, a sentencing court may not use a defendant’s silence at a sentencing hearing as a proof that the defendant does not take responsibility for the offense.
Topic: Restitution – Amending a Restitution Order
Summary: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a restitution order that sets an amount of restitution and states that the order is subject to later modification is not invalid. Further, under 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1106(c)(3), a court may modify restitution at any time, but the reasons for the modification must be stated on the record.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-61-2009mo.pdf
Topic: Criminal Appeals – Extension of time to file a Statement Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Summary: An appellant must request an extension of time to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal in writing within the 21 day time-limit imposed by Pa.R.A.P. 1925 or face waiver.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-190-2008mo.pdf
Topic: Right to Counsel – Waiver or Forfeiture of Right to Counsel
Summary: Where a defendant forfeits his right to counsel, Pa.R.Crim. P. 121 does not apply and a colloquy is not necessary.
Illustration: The defendant could afford counsel and repeatedly chose not to retain an attorney. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that in such a case, the defendant has forfeited his right to counsel and must proceed pro se. Further, the trial court does not have to conduct a counsel waiver colloquy with the defendant as the colloquy is only applicable in cases where the defendant waives his right to counsel.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-83-2008mo.pdf
Majority Opinion by Justice Baer (joined by Justice Todd, joined by Justice Saylor in parts I-IV, VI, and VIII; joined by Chief Justice Castille, Justice Eakin and Justice McCaffery in parts I, the first half of part V, and the first half of part VII); Concurring Opinion by Chief Justice Castille (joined by Justice Eakin and Justice McCaffery); Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Saylor; Justice Greenspan did not take part in this case
Topics: 1.) PCRA Counsel Ineffectiveness 2.) Batson Challenge – Racial Makeup of a Jury
Issue 1 Summary: The Majority Opinion concludes that an appellant may raise a claim of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness in the Superior or Supreme Court without having to file a new petition before the PCRA court.
Issue 1 Illustration: Defendant alleged that PCRA counsel was ineffective in his appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Defendant did not raise this issue before the PCRA court before raising it in the current appeal. Under the law, Defendant would appear to be barred from raising this claim until the current appeal is complete. However, the delay would put the Defendant outside of the time limitations of the PCRA. Therefore, in order to enforce the Defendant’s right to effective counsel in a first PCRA proceeding, the Supreme Court has no choice but to entertain challenges to PCRA counsel’s effectiveness even where the issue was not previously raised before the PCRA court.
Issue 2 Summary: Where a district attorney uses 9 of 20 peremptory challenges to eliminate African-American jurors, 7 African-Americans were impaneled, there were no overt signs of racial discrimination, and the case was not racially sensitive a Batson challenge failed.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-121-2007mo.pdf
Topic: Right to Counsel – Miranda Rights – Custodial Interrogation
Summary: In order for the right to counsel to be invoked, the defendant must proactively request a lawyer. The mere appointment of an attorney will not be sufficient unless the defendant asked for a lawyer.
Topic: Statement Pursuant to 1925(b) – Waiver – Late Filing
Summary: The late filing of a 1925(b) statement is per se ineffectiveness. Therefore, the late filing of a 1925(b) statement will be treated the same as the failure to file a 1925(b) statement (The Court will not find waiver and will review the case on its merits).
Topic: Self-Incrimination – Cross-Examination
Summary: Where a defendant takes the stand for limited purposes, s/he must state the limited purpose and invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before testifying in order to “plead the Fifth” during cross-examination.
Topic: DUI – Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) – Coefficient of Variation
Summary: Where the coefficient of variation fails to indicate that the defendant may have been operating a vehicle while below the legal limit, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
Illustration: Sibley was charged with DUI with a blood alcohol level above 0.16%. There was a 3% coefficient of variation. Sibley argued that with this variation, his blood alcohol level may have been anywhere between 0.157% to 0.167% and the evidence was therefore insufficient to support his conviction. The Superior Court concluded that, since the evidence showed that Sibley’s BAC was between 0.157% to 0.167%, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of DUI with a 0.16% blood alcohol level (The question of what the precise BAC was goes to the weight of the evidence).
Topic: Sentencing Conditions – Random Searches as a Condition of Probation or Parole
Summary: The Superior Court reversed and remanded where the trial court made random residence searches a condition of Mears’ sentence. The sentence was invalid because 1.) Mears was not sentenced to probation and 2.) Mears’ was given a state sentence, therefore, the sentencing court could not usurp the power of the State Parole Board by giving parole conditions.