Attorney Goldstein Obtains New Sentencing in Federal Court for Murder Defendant Sentenced to Illegal 40-Year Sentence

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein recently obtained a new sentencing hearing for a client who had been sentenced to an illegal 40-year sentence for third degree murder. In S.C. v. Krasner, et al., the defendant had been found guilty of third degree murder by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. At the time that the murder was committed, the statute in effect for third-degree murder authorized a maximum sentence of 20 years’ incarceration. While the case was pending, however, the Pennsylvania Legislature amended the statute to increase the maximum to 40 years’ incarceration. Following his conviction, the Court of Common Pleas improperly sentenced S.C. to 40 years’ incarceration despite the fact that ex post facto rules prohibit the government from retroactively applying laws which make penalties worse where those laws were not in effect at the time that the crime was committed. S.C.’s attorneys did not appeal on this issue at the time.

S.C. had a number of legal issues and was serving sentences in multiple jurisdictions at the same time. Over the years, he wrote to his original attorneys asking that they appeal the 20-40 year sentence because the sentence violated his rights in that he received a worse punishment than he could have received at the time of the offense. The attorneys wrote back and erroneously advised him that there was no rush to file an appeal or PCRA petition because the illegal sentence could be corrected at any time. Ultimately, S.C. made parole, but because of the illegal sentence, he would have remained on parole for twenty years. S.C. therefore filed a PCRA petition with prior counsel asking that the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia correct the illegal sentence and re-sentence him to 10-20 years’ incarceration. The trial court denied that petition, finding that it was untimely filed and that S.C. should have appealed at the time of his original sentencing. The Superior Court affirmed.

S.C. then retained Attorney Goldstein to file a petition in federal court. In general, once state court appeals and PCRA petitions have been denied, it is sometimes possible to challenge the rulings of the state courts in federal courts by filing a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 US Code § 2254. Attorney Goldstein therefore filed a petition asking the federal court to find that the illegal sentence should be vacated because S.C. could not have properly received a 40 year sentence at the time of his original sentencing.

Attorney Goldstein also argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply. In most cases, a federal habeas petition is subject to a one year statute of limitations which begins to run form when the defendant’s sentence becomes final. This typically means that the petition must be filed within about a year of the conclusion of any appeals, although a defendant may have an additional thirty or ninety days if the defendant appealed to the Superior Court or Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Equitable tolling is a doctrine which allows a federal court to consider a claim even when the statute of limitations has expired.

In order to receive equitable tolling, a petitioner must establish two elements: (1) that he or she has been pursuing his or her rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Some federal courts have applied equitable tolling where it is clear that the petitioner was abandoned by counsel or received incredibly incorrect legal advice.

In this case, Attorney Goldstein filed the habeas petition, and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office then actually agreed to the relief sought. The Commonwealth, through its Conviction Integrity Unit, conceded that S.C. should not have received a sentence of more than 20 years under the third-degree murder statute which was in effect at the time of the crime. Given the Commonwealth’s agreement, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania promptly granted the habeas petition and ordered that the state court re-sentence S.C. S.C. then received a 10-20 year sentence, which he had already served, at the re-sentencing. Accordingly, he will not have to spend 20 years subject to the restrictions and whims of state parole.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also obtained new trials and sentencing hearings for clients on appeal and in post-conviction litigation. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 12/18/20 Zak Goldstein 12/18/20

Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Fingerprints on Movable Object Insufficient for Criminal Conviction

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided the case of Travillion v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, granting the defendant’s petition for habeas corpus and holding that fingerprints on a movable object, without additional evidence showing how or when they got there, may not be sufficient to convict a defendant. This opinion is important both because it is relatively rare for a federal court to overrule a state court on sufficiency grounds and because it highlights the problems with fingerprint evidence. In addition to not being nearly as reliable as it appears on TV, fingerprint evidence also cannot always tell the judge or jury how or when the fingerprints got on an object. If the fingerprints could have been left on an object at some point other than when the crime was committed, then they are not sufficient to show the identity of the person woh committed the crime.

Commonwealth v. Travillion

The defendant was charged with robbery. At trial, the Commonwealth presented two witnesses to prove their case. The first witness was a manager of a clothing store. The manager testified that one day, she entered the store, but she was running late because of inclement weather. She was the first one to enter the store. After she entered the store, she turned around to lock the door when she noticed someone behind her. This person was wearing a winter jacket and was holding a Manila folder in his left hand. The manager told the individual that the store was not open yet, but he pushed his way inside. At this point, the alarm was going off and the individual instructed the manager to turn off the alarm.

The individual then grabbed the manager by the arm and told her to open the safe near the cash registers. While in the process of getting the money, the individual left the Manila folder on the ground. After he determined that there was no more money in this safe, the robber then instructed the manager to take him to another safe that was located in her office. The manager would later testify that “nobody, but the district manager and my other assistants knew about the second safe.” In the process of going to the office, the robber forcefully ripped a sliding accordion door almost off its hinges. In total, the robber took approximately $6,400. During the robbery, the manager began to cry and said that she had children to which the robber said “I know.” The individual then instructed the manager to escort him to the back door. The robber then ran from the building across a parking lot to a four-door Ford Taurus which had the motor running and entered the front passenger side of the vehicle and then pulled away.

Once the robber left, the manager locked the doors and called the police. She then noticed the Manilla folder that was on the ground. She was unable to identify the robber because his face had been covered. She described the robber as very well spoken and approximately 5’10. Additionally, he was in his mid-twenties, had an athletic built, and based on his voice “led [her] to believe that he could have been African-American” though she did not know for sure. It should be noted that at the time of his arrest the defendant was 6’1, weighed 170 pounds, African-American, and had a medium frame build.

After the police arrived, they were able to get fingerprints from the folder as well as some papers that were inside the folder. According to the Commonwealth, after comparing the lifts from the folder to the defendant’s, they were able to determine that they belonged to the defendant. The Commonwealth was also able to retrieve a fingerprint from the door, but the fingerprint did not come back as the defendant’s. At trial, the detective would testify that the only fingerprints identified as belonging to the defendant were those on the Manila folder and one of the papers in the folder. The detective would further testify that people can touch things without leaving a fingerprint, and that it was possible that someone other than the defendant touched the Manila folder, but did not leave fingerprints. It should also be noted that there was no evidence presented at his trial that the defendant had any connection to the store (i.e. he was not a current/former employee or had a friend/relative who worked there).

The defendant proceeded by way of jury trial and he was found guilty of robbery and was subsequently sentenced to a mandatory 10 to 20 years’ incarceration that was to run consecutively to the separate sentence of life without the possibility of parole that he was serving as a result of a second-degree murder conviction. The defendant then filed a post-sentence motion which was denied. He then filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court denied his appeal and his request for re-argument before the Superior Court en banc was denied. He then filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which was also denied. He then filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition which was denied and the Superior Court affirmed the denial of his PCRA petition too.

After he exhausted all of his remedies with the Pennsylvania courts, the defendant then filed a pro se habeas petition in federal court. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of the defendant’s petition. With regard to the insufficient evidence claim, the R&R pointed to the testimony that the robber carried the Manila folder with his left hand into the store and that the defendant’s fingerprints from the left hand matched those on the folder and paper. The District Court then adopted the R&R as the opinion of the court and dismissed the habeas petition. The defendant then filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeal and requested a certificate of appealability. The Third Circuit granted the certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the state court’s decision finding sufficient evidence to convict was a clearly unreasonable application of constitutional law.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit reversed the defendant’s conviction and held that he could not be retried for the charge of robbery. In its decision, the Third Circuit found that the only evidence against the defendant that actually linked him to the robbery were his fingerprints on the Manila folder and paper, which the Third Circuit described as “easily movable objects.” What stood out to the Third Circuit was what evidence was missing in the case against the defendant. Specifically, the Third Circuit found that it was significant that the defendant’s fingerprints were not found anywhere else at the crime scene. Additionally, “[t]here was no evidence that the folder and paper were unavailable to [the defendant] that the folder and paper were unavailable to the defendant prior to the robbery, no evidence as to the age of the prints, and no evidence as to how long the prints could remain on the folder and paper after their impression.” The Commonwealth was also unable to prove when the prints were placed on the folder and the paper. Further, the manager’s description did not match the defendant’s physical characteristics. Finally, despite there being ample evidence that this was an inside job, there was no evidence presented at trial that the defendant had any connection whatsoever to the store.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit found that the evidence was not sufficient to convict the defendant and that it was objectively unreasonable for the previous courts to hold that a rational juror could have convicted the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, because the Third Circuit found that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, the defendant does not need to worry about being prosecuted again for this crime because double jeopardy applies to his case.

This case illustrates that there are a number of different ways to appeal a criminal conviction. In general, appeals start out with a direct criminal appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. If the Superior Court denies the appeal, then it is possible to file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and later potentially the United States Supreme Court. Both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court accept very few cases.

If the direct appeals are unsuccessful, then the next round of appeals comes in the form of a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition with the trial judge in state court. Those petitions typically allege the ineffective assistance of counsel. In other words, a PCRA Petition will usually allege that a defendant should receive a new trial because of something that the trial lawyer or appellate lawyer did wrong. Again, if the trial court denies the PCRA Petition, then the PCRA can be appealed to the Superior Court and Supreme Court. If that is unsuccessful, there is one more round of appeals in federal court. It is then possible to file a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 USC § 2254. In that petition, it may be possible to challenge the prior rulings of the state courts as well as the ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel. Here, the defendant was successful in getting the Third Circuit to find that the state courts have ignored the constitution by finding the defendant guilty and upholding his convictions despite insufficient evidence to show that he committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If you or your loved one may have been improper.y convicted in state or federal court, our criminal appeals lawyers can help you understand your appeal rights.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.