Com. v. Wallace, J. No. 2427 EDA 2019
In Commonwealth v. Wallace, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, and some charges related to carrying a firearm without a license and as a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. The facts of the case are as follows. In April, 2019, the defendant was at a bar with a friend and captured on surveillance going in and out for much of the evening and afternoon. At around 6:00 pm, the defendant went out to his car, got a gun, and tucked it in the waistband of his pants. The defendant and his friend eventually left the pub and met up with another individual. They encountered another person, and the defendant pointed his gun at the victim. As the victim ran away, the defendant chased him and fired multiple shots at the victim. Following trial, the defendant was convicted of all charges and was sentenced to consecutive sentences on all his charges. The defendant filed a timely appeal.
In his first two issues, the defendant challenges evidentiary rulings. First, regarding photographs that the defendant claims were inflammatory. The trial court found that the photographs were not inflammatory and further stated that to the extent that one might find them inflammatory, they are so essential to the Commonwealths case that their relevance outweighs any potential inflammatory nature. The court further instructed the jury to safeguard against any possible prejudice. The superior court found no abuse of discretion.
The second evidentiary issue stemmed from GPS data. The court found that GPS data automatically generated by a computer, free from interference by any person does not constitute a statement and therefore cannot qualify as hearsay. The superior court also evaluated what is necessary to establish proof of a conspiracy. A conviction for conspiracy requires proof of an intent to commit or aid in an unlawful act, an agreement with a co-conspirator, and an over act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Because it is difficult to prove an explicit or formal agreement to commit an unlawful act, such an agreement may be proved inferentially by circumstantial evidence such as the relations, conduct, or circumstances of the parties or overt acts on the part of the co-conspirators. It is not enough to establish a conspiracy when they join into an affray spontaneously, rather than pursuant to a common plan, agreement or understanding. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy based on the behavior prior to, during, and after the assault.
The final question raised involved the discretionary aspects of sentencing. The court found that the question was properly raised and therefore could be addressed on the merits, however the court found that despite the deviation from the sentencing guidelines, those guidelines are merely one factor among many the court must consider in imposing sentence. The court may deviate from the recommended guidelines if necessary, to fashion a sentence which takes into account the protection of the public, the rehabilitative needs of the defendant, and the gravity of the particular offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and the community. When a court deviates from the guidelines, they must demonstrate, on the record, its awareness of the sentencing guidelines and offer a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons for deviating from the guidelines. The court properly articulated its reasons for exceeding the guidelines and therefore, the defendant is entitled to no relief on the discretionary aspects of sentencing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.
The key takeaways from this case – evidentiary rulings are reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard and are very difficult to overcome; to prove a conspiracy, you don’t have to have direct evidence of an agreement or plan – circumstantial evidence is enough, and when challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if the court articulates the reasons for deviating from the guidelines, that too, will be very difficult to overcome.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
