Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 2/8/23 Zak Goldstein 2/8/23

Federal Sentencing Update: United States Sentencing Commission Proposes Limiting Use of Acquitted Conduct at Sentencing

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Sentencing Commission recently proposed a major change to federal sentencing law, indicating that it may bar the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing where defendants have been acquitted of some charges but convicted of others. This would represent a major change in federal sentencing law. Currently, federal judges may sentence criminal defendants based on conduct for which the jury acquitted them. This is an incredibly unfair practice as it means that a defendant may go to trial on two charges, get acquitted by the jury of the more serious charge when the jury finds that the government could not prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and then still be sentenced as if they had been convicted of the more serious charge.

Acquitted conduct is an offense for which the defendant was not convicted. For example, in many cases, defendant could be charged with guns and drugs at the same time. The penalties for federal drug offenses can be draconian on their own, but the presence or use of a firearm during the commission of the drug offense can result in mandatory minimums and federal sentencing guidelines that are exponentially higher. Federal judges take the guidelines incredibly seriously, so the guideline calculation is extremely important. Currently, there is nothing preventing federal judges from treating a defendant who has been convicted of a drug offense but acquitted of the firearm offense the same at sentencing as if the defendant had been convicted of both offenses. This can lead to a drastically longer sentence even though the jury partially acquitted. Federal judges also may often consider conduct for which the defendant was never charged.

Similar sentencing issues can arise in white collar cases, as well. For example, where a jury acquits a defendant of some counts related to a fraud scheme but convicts on others, the judge can currently sentence based on dollar amounts involved in the counts for which the defendant was acquitted. Because the loss amount involved is often the most important factor in the federal sentencing guideline calculation, this can have a significant impact on the resulting sentence.

Numerous defendants have attempted to challenge this practice as violating the Constitution in the United States Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has rejected those challenges. The Supreme Court concluded in United States v. Watts that “a jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge.” Some of the recently confirmed justices have previously signaled that they may reconsider that ruling, but so far, the Court has not accepted any petitions for certiorari on the issue.

The Sentencing Commission, however, could avoid the need for court action should it approve the proposed change. The proposed change would preclude courts from being able to consider acquitted conduct at sentenicng. The Sentencing Commission was created by Congress for the purpose of establishing the rules by which the guidelines are calculated. Ultimately, the guidelines produce a recommended sentencing range for the judge to consider when imposing sentencing. Until recently, the guideline range was actually mandatory and a judge could not sentence below the guidelines under most circumstances. The guidelines are no longer mandatory, but they are still extremely important.

The downside of the change being approved by the Sentencing Commission rather than the Court is that the change would almost certainly not be retroactive. However, this is an important change that strengthens the presumption of innocence and holds the government to its burden of proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal defendants should not be sentenced for things that the jury found that they did not do.

This change would only affect federal sentencing proceedings. It would not alter the current practice in the Pennsylvania state courts. The Pennsylvania state courts also use sentencing guidelines, but the guidelines are not quite as important as they are in federal court. The state courts are far more likely to depart from them. Further, it is relatively rare for courts to consider acquitted conduct or conduct for which a defendant was not charged in a state court sentencing proceeding. It is not necessarily prohibited at all times, but state court judges almost always agree that they should not hold alleged offenses for which a defendant was acquitted against them.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, at oral argument

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 won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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 12/14/22 Zak Goldstein 12/14/22

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Must Hold Ability to Pay Hearing Before Finding Parolee in Violation

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Reed, finding that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to prison for violating parole by failing to pay costs and fines without first holding a hearing to make sure that the defendant was actually able to make those payments. Courts may sentence a defendant to prison for failing to pay restitution, court costs and fines, but they can only do that where the failure to pay is willful. Therefore, a court must first hold a hearing to determine whether or not a defendant can afford to pay before sentencing a defendant to jail.

The Facts of Reed

The defendant was given a sentence of six months to two years, minus a day, of incarceration. In addition, he was ordered to refrain from illicit drug use, pay fines and costs, complete a drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment, and report to probation. About six months later, the court granted parole. Then, 16 months later, the defendant received notice that he had allegedly violated his parole.

The defendant appeared for a violation of probation (VOP) hearing. The trial court found the defendant violated his parole by (1) using illicit drugs, (2) failing to pay court-ordered fines and costs, (3) failing to submit to a drug and alcohol evaluation, and (4) failing to report to his parole officer. The court revoked the defendant’s parole and sentenced him to his back time. Back time is the time during which the defendant would have been on parole had he not violated.

The Issues on Appeal

On appeal, the defendant raised three issues. First, he challenged the adequacy of the notice of the parole violation. The defendant argued that the notice sent to him through the mail did not adequately inform him of all the details of the alleged parole violation. The Superior Court found this issue waived because the defendant had not brought it up in the trial court.

Second, the defendant argued that the conditions of parole which he was accused of violating had not actually been made a part of his sentence, and he could not violate something which was not part of his sentence. The Superior Court rejected this challenge, finding that paying fines and costs, submitting to drug assessments, refraining from the use of illegal drugs, and reporting were all part of the defendant’s sentence.

Finally, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in violating him for failure to pay costs and fines without first holding an ability to pay hearing. The Superior Court cited Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 706(A). The rule provides:

A court shall not commit the defendant to prison for failure to pay a fine or costs unless it appears after hearing that the defendant is financially able to pay the fine or costs.

The Superior Court further cited Commonwealth v. Cooper, recognizing that when a defendant is found in violation of their parole and recommitted, if failure to pay was part of the violation, then the defendant is entitled to an ability to pay hearing. Here, the Superior Court found there was an error by the trial court.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court ruled that even though the trial court properly found violations of parole and sentenced the defendant based on those violations, the trial court was required to hold an ability to pay hearing before ordering any sentence of incarceration. The trial court erred in failing to give the defendant the opportunity to establish his inability to pay his costs and fines prior to imposing an incarceration sentence. Therefore, the court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for an ability to pay hearing and re-sentencing.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia

Zak Goldstein 12/11/22 Zak Goldstein 12/11/22

PA Superior Court: Prosecution May Cross Examine Defendant on Prior Arrests if Defendant Opens the Door

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Bullock, holding that where the defendant testifies in an unprompted manner that they’ve never been arrested before, the prosecution may then introduce evidence of prior arrests as impeachment evidence. Although there is a general rule that a defendant may not be cross examined on prior criminal convictions, that rule gives way to false testimony by the defendant which makes the prior convictions admissible impeachment evidence.

The Facts of Bullock

In 2018, the defendant’s children found the defendant passed out on the porch of their home. The children called the police. The police came to the scene, and they found the defendant stumbling, going in and out of consciousness, and smelling of PCP. The police arrested the defendant.

The children were placed with their grandparents. They then disclosed that the defendant, their mother, had allegedly been abusing them. The Commonwealth charged her with aggravated assault, strangulation, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, and three counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

The Criminal Trial

The defendant proceeded by way of bench trial. The trial court found her guilty of the endangering the welfare of a child counts, but it acquitted her of everything else. The court sentenced her to time served to 23 months’ incarceration followed by a year of probation. She filed timely post-sentence motions. The court denied those motions, and she appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Issue on Appeal

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for public drunkenness. Her defense attorney objected to admission of that evidence, but the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the evidence to be admitted.

Pennsylvania has a statute which generally prohibits the Commonwealth from cross-examining the defendant themselves about prior convictions, even where the defendant testifies. The statute provides:

§ 5918. Examination of defendant as to other offenses
No person charged with any crime and called as a witness in his own behalf, shall be asked, or if asked, shall be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed, or been charged with, or been convicted of any offense other than the one wherewith he shall then be charged, or tending to show that he has been of bad character or reputation . . .

The statute, however, has exceptions that allow the Commonwealth to do so when:

(1) he shall have at such trial, personally or by counsel, asked questions of the witness for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good reputation or character, or has given evidence tending to prove his own good character or reputation; or
(2) he shall have testified at such trial against a co-defendant, charged with the same offense.

Here, the defense attorney asked the defendant if she used PCP or alcohol on the day in question, and she denied that she had consumed either. Later, on cross-examination, the prosecutor asked if she had ever used drugs or alcohol, and she denied that, as well. Obviously, that was untrue as the defendant had a conviction for public drunkenness. The prosecution then the evidence of that conviction.

Additionally, while testifying on direct examination, the defendant testified that she felt terrible that day, was not really sure what happened, and that she had never been arrested before. That was not true, however, as she had the prior conviction.

Following the denial of her post-sentence motions, she appealed the conviction to the Superior Court and challenged the trial court’s decision to allow the prior conviction into evidence.

The Superior Court’s Ruling on Appeal

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the trial court should not have allowed the prosecutor to ask if she ever used drugs or had ever used alcohol. She had not denied ever using them on direct examination; she had only denied using them that day. She had, however, suggested that she had never been arrested before. This was not true, and that statement did not come in response to the Commonwealth’s questioning but rather the questioning of her own attorney. Therefore, the Commonwealth properly impeached her with evidence of her prior conviction in response to her insistence that she had never been arrested before. The Superior Court therefore denied the appeal.

It is possible, however, that a subsequent lawyer could challenge trial counsel’s performance in a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition as trial counsel should not have asked a question which opened the door to a prior conviction. Thus, the issue may be one of ineffective assistance of counsel rather than error by the trial court. Either way, the Court ruled that the conviction will stand.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

Zak Goldstein 10/10/22 Zak Goldstein 10/10/22

PA Supreme Court: Trial Court May Dismiss Prosecution for Incompetent Defendant Where Defendant Unlikely to Regain Competency

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Humphrey, holding that Section 7403(e) of the MHPA authorizes a trial court to dismiss the charges of an individual deemed incompetent in any instance that the court finds it would be unjust to resume the prosecution due to the passage of time and its effect on criminal proceedings. Notably, the Supreme Court overruled prior precedent that an individual must regain competency before a trial court may dismiss charges due to the unreasonable nature of this condition and the plain language of the statutory text.

Commonwealth v. Humphrey

While serving a state sentence, the defendant allegedly threw a bag of urine on a corrections officer. A few months later, the defendant allegedly spat on a corrections officer. The Commonwealth charged the defendant with two counts of aggravated harassment by prisoner. Preliminary hearings occurred, and the charges were bound over for trial.

Defense counsel requested a psychiatric evaluation and competency examination of the defendant, and the trial court entered an order for these evaluations. Dr. Scott Scotilla evaluated the defendant and prepared a report. In the report, the defendant displayed paranoid and delusional behavior and frequently spoke about irrelevant topics, such as conspiracy theories, and did not answer Dr. Scotilla’s questions. Dr. Scotilla reviewed Department of Corrections Mental Health Contact Notes, which showed that the defendant had engaged in similar behavior previously. The defendant’s most recent diagnosis indicated he had antisocial personality disorder and mild intellectual disability. Dr. Scotilla concluded that the defendant should be evaluated at another psychiatric center which could more effectively evaluate the defendant and provide restoration of competency services if necessary, though Dr. Scotilla did not mention in his report if the defendant’s competency could be restored or if treatment options within the Department of Corrections could address his competency issues.

The defendant’s attorney filed a petition in the trial court claiming that the defendant could not understand the nature of the proceedings against him and that his mental illness prevented him from being criminally responsible for his offenses. During the hearing on this matter, the Commonwealth agreed that the defendant was not competent to proceed to trial at the time, and the trial court entered an order for the defendant to be admitted into involuntary treatment before the case would be reevaluated. The Department of Human Services ordered the defendant to be transferred to a hospital, but the hospital informed the Commonwealth that the defendant could not be admitted because he was a state inmate serving a sentence.

The defendant eventually filed a motion to dismiss his charges because the Commonwealth was unable to find him necessary competency restoration services, emphasizing the fact that two years had already passed since his offenses occurred and that he would likely not regain competency. The Commonwealth responded, arguing that the defendant did not present sufficient evidence that he would not regain competency to stand trial and requested that the defendant be reexamined for competency. The Commonwealth provided an assessment by Dr. Cynthia Wright of the DOC, where Dr. Wright opined that the defendant’s aggressive behavior was not due to mental illness, but instead due to a desire to receive special privileges. She opined that his diagnoses were antisocial personality disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Notably, the defendant did not cooperate with Dr. Wright’s evaluation, so she based her report on the defendant’s progress notes, treatment plans, medication summaries, diagnosis summaries, and physicians’ notes.

The court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. All three witnesses agreed that the DOC does not provide competency restoration services to inmates serving state sentences, but the DOC can provide some mental health treatment. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges, referencing the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. McGargle and Section 7403(e), specifically the sentence that explains that a dismissal may occur if it would be unjust for the prosecution to resume based on the passage of time. The trial court noted that the defendant would only become eligible for competency restoration services in the next 2.5 to 13.5 years due to his current sentence and that even if he were paroled after 2.5 years, it is unlikely he would be able to recall the events of his offenses due to the passage of time and the severity of his incompetence.

The Commonwealth filed an appeal, raising the issues of whether the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant’s charges violated Section 7403, whether the evidence was insufficient that the defendant would be prejudiced by resuming criminal proceedings, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the charges instead of ordering another competency evaluation. The Superior Court agreed that the trial court erroneously interpreted Section 7403(e), stating that relevant case law demonstrated that Section 7403(e) does not authorize dismissal of charges when a defendant would likely not regain competency. The Superior Court did not address the other two issues raised.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for allowance of appeal to address whether the Superior Court erred in reversing the dismissal of charges, where the defendant claimed that Section 7403(e) does authorize dismissal of charges when the resumption of prosecution would be unjust, evidence did establish that the defendant’s incompetence and the passage of time rendered the resumption of prosecution unjust, and competency evaluation was unnecessary since the trial court had concluded that sufficient time had passed for the prosecution to be rendered unjust.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court reviewed the MHPA, beginning with Section 7402(a), which states that when an individual who is charged with a crime is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, he will be deemed incompetent to be tried, convicted, or sentenced for as long as the incapacity exists. Additionally, according to Section 7403(f), the stay of the prosecution may not last longer than 10 years in this case. The Supreme Court concluded that both the defendant’s and the Commonwealth’s interpretations of Section 7403(e) were reasonable. However, the Supreme Court determined that the consequences of the Commonwealth’s interpretation were not reasonable.

Under the Commonwealth’s interpretation, the trial court would not possess authority to dismiss criminal charges against an incompetent defendant under any circumstances. Section 7403(e) also does not state at any point that dismissal of charges is based on the defendant’s resumption of competency, which was part of the Commonwealth’s interpretation.

The Supreme Court also acknowledged that if ambiguity exists in a statute, the language should be interpreted in a way that is favorable to the defendant. The Supreme Court disagreed with the initial decision of the Superior Court, which presumed that the Legislature intended for the consequences of the statute to be unreasonable.

The Supreme Court reviewed relevant cases Hazur and McGargle, neither of which properly addressed whether a trial court may dismiss charges of an individual deemed incompetent for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court determined that Section 7403(e) does grant trial courts the authority to dismiss criminal charges in any instance where it would be unjust to resume prosecution, whether or not the defendant has regained competency. The Supreme Court remanded the remaining issues to an intermediate appellate court. Therefore, the Superior Court vacated judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

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.