Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 11/11/21 Zak Goldstein 11/11/21

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 10/15/21 Zak Goldstein 10/15/21

PA Superior Court Reins in Prior Bad Acts Evidence in Homicide Case

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Green, holding that the trial court improperly granted the Commonwealth’s Prior Bad Acts Motion in a homicide trial. The Superior Court found that the facts of the two cases were not sufficiently similar to justify introducing evidence that the defendant had previously committed another crime and therefore the defendant was unfairly prejudiced at trial. This case is very significant because prosecutors frequently attempt to introduce evidence of prior misconduct by the defendant in serious cases and courts routinely grant these motions. Once a jury learns that the defendant already has a criminal record, it becomes extremely difficult to obtain a fair trial. Therefore, it is very important the Superior Court has found a limit to what type of prior bad acts evidence prosecutors may introduce at trial.

Commonwealth v. Green

A woman was shot and killed in her convenience store in South Philadelphia. A man entered the decedent’s store, aimed a firearm at her, and shot her ten times. The man then fled the store. A short time later, the gunman, later identified as the defendant, was seen on video surveillance entering a black Chevrolet Impala located nearby.

A Philadelphia Police detective spoke to the defendant’s girlfriend. The girlfriend told the police about a night that happened six months prior to the murder. According to the girlfriend, the defendant left her alone in his house and after he left, the girlfriend spoke with the decedent’s grandson and they decided to steal the defendant’s favorite necklace. The girlfriend stole the defendant’s necklace and then gave it to the grandson to pawn. They then split the money and used it to buy drugs.

Four days after the shooting, the defendant was arrested and was charged with first-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person. The Commonwealth filed a motion to introduce prior bad acts. Specifically, the Commonwealth sought to present evidence regarding an incident that took place 14 months prior to the murder. During this incident, the defendant allegedly had a physical altercation over a drug dispute with an individual named “Jay” and in retaliation, shot at “Jay’s” grandmother’s house. However, the defendant was not arrested regarding this incident. According to the Commonwealth, this showed that the defendant had a common scheme or plan of committing retribution against the grandmothers of those with whom he had drug disputes. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to admit the evidence of the prior shooting.

The defendant elected to proceed by jury trial and represented himself. During his first trial, the trial court declared a mistrial because the jury was unable to return a unanimous verdict. During the defendant’s second trial, he was found guilty of all charges. On the same day, the trial court sentenced the defendant to life in prison. The defendant filed a post-sentence motion which was denied. The defendant filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant raised several issues, but for purposes of this blog, only the issue of whether the trial court improperly granted the Commonwealth’s prior bad acts motion will be addressed.

What is a Prior Bad Acts Motion?

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b) is the relevant rule that governs prior bad acts motions. Rule 404(b) states:

1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

Evidence of prior crimes is not admissible for the sole purpose of demonstrating a criminal defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. However, this type of evidence may be admissible in certain circumstances where it is relevant for some other legitimate purpose and not utilized solely to blacken a defendant’s character. Specifically, other crimes evidence is admissible if offered for a non-propensity purpose, such as proof of an actor’s knowledge, plan, motive, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. As such, when this evidence is offered for a legitimate purpose, evidence of prior crimes will be admissible if its probative value outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

When ruling upon the admissibility of evidence under the common plan exception, the trial court must examine the details and surrounding circumstances of each criminal incident to assure that the evidence reveals criminal conduct which is distinctive. In making its decision, trial courts are supposed to consider the habits or patterns of actions undertaken by the defendant. Additionally, trial courts must also consider the time, place, and types of victims. Further, the common plan evidence must not be too remote in time to be probative to the instant matter.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court and granted the defendant a new trial. The Superior Court found that the two incidents were just too different, and therefore the trial court committed reversible error by granting the Commonwealth’s motion. Specifically, the Superior Court found that two different guns were used in the shootings; the defendant was not arrested in the prior bad acts motion shooting; the two shootings were 14 months apart; and in the prior bad acts shooting, only the door was shot. Because these two shootings were too distinctive from one another, the evidence of the prior shooting should not have been admitted at the trial. Therefore, the Court vacated the defendant’s judgment of sentence, and the defendant will receive a new trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

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. 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 6/30/21 Zak Goldstein 6/30/21

PA Superior Court: Threatening and Later Hitting Someone Sufficient Evidence for Terroristic Threats Conviction

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Campbell, affirming the defendant’s conviction for terroristic threats. The Superior Court’s decision in this case is not surprising given that the defendant threatened the complainant and then proceeded to physically attack him. However, other terroristic threats cases are not always this obvious. Further, the Commonwealth will frequently charge terroristic threats in addition to other crimes of violence. As such, if you are charged with terroristic threats, it is imperative that you have a skilled attorney representing you because it requires a very specific attention to details in orderly to properly defend against this charge.

Commonwealth v. Campbell

The defendant was painting the floor of the complainant’s house in South Philadelphia. The defendant asked the complainant to give him $500 for more materials to which the complainant responded that he would only give the defendant $300. As a result of this, the defendant became angry and started yelling and cursing at the complainant. The complainant would later testify that he became scared because of the defendant’s yelling. The complainant then tried to call the police, but the defendant slapped the phone out of his hand before he could do so.

After he slapped the phone out of the complainant’s hand, the defendant then went to his van. While he was out there, the complainant was able to call the police. The defendant then returned to the complainant’s house and confronted the complainant on his front porch. The two men got into a physical confrontation which resulted in the defendant punching the complainant in the mouth, knocking the complainant’s two front teeth out. The defendant said to the complainant “if you don’t give me money, I’m going to finish you.” After this exchange, the defendant left the complainant’s residence.

After the defendant left, the complainant retreated to his van to wait for the police. Before the police arrived, the defendant came back to the complainant’s house, this time with his four children. The defendant walked up to the complainant’s car and struck him with a tire iron. A short time later, the police arrived. The complainant initially refused medical treatment because he was waiting for a locksmith to come to change his locks because the defendant had a key to his home. After the locksmith changed the locks, the complainant did go to the hospital for treatment. The record is unclear as to what other injuries the complainant sustained.

The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated assault and terroristic events. The defendant elected to proceed by a bench trial. At trial, the complainant testified to the aforementioned facts. The defendant also testified. He admitted to getting into a physical altercation with the complainant over money and punching him in the mouth. He also admitted to hitting the complainant with a weapon, but he said that he hit him with nunchucks and that this was done in self-defense. Finally, and most relevant for this blog, he admitted telling the complainant that if he did not give him his money, he would finish him.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty of simple assault, possessing an instrument of crime, and terroristic threats. He was sentenced to two years’ probation. The defendant filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant only challenged his conviction for terroristic threats. As stated above, he admits that he made the above statement to the complainant. However, he argued that this was not sufficient to convict him of the charge of terroristic threats because the threat amounted only to a “spur-of-the moment threat made as a product of transitory anger.”

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for terroristic threats and found that his claim was “meritless.” In order to sustain a conviction for terroristic threats, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant 1) made a threat to commit a crime of violence and 2) the threat was communicated with the intent to terrorize another. The Superior Court found that the purpose of the terroristic threats statute was to impose criminal liability on individuals who make threats which “seriously impair personal security.”

In reviewing the record, the Superior Court found that there was more than sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of terroristic threats. The fact that the defendant actually hit the complainant after making said threat showed that the defendant did not merely make said threat during a period of transitory anger. What was most damning for the defendant, was that he made the threat to the complainant, left the scene, and then returned again to attack the complainant. To the Superior Court, this showed that the defendant had intended to terrorize the complainant when he made said threat. As such, the defendant will not get relief and his conviction will stand.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia

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.

Zak Goldstein 6/17/21 Zak Goldstein 6/17/21

Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Partially Defective Jury Instructions Still Require Showing of Prejudice

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of Baxter v. Superintendent Coal Township, holding that the failure of trial counsel to object to a partially defective jury instruction relating to reasonable doubt does not automatically require a new trial in cases where the evidence was overwhelming. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that although the instruction in question was at least partially defective, the defendant was still required to show prejudice, meaning that the result of the trial might have been different had the instruction been completely accurate. In this case, the Court concluded that the evidence was overwhelming, so the defendant will not receive a new trial due to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Facts of Baxter

In Baxter, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and related charges. Numerous witnesses who personally knew the defendant testified against him at trial. All of his state court appeals and PCRA petitions were rejected, and he eventually filed a federal habeas petition. In the petition, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to an example that the trial judge gave of the meaning of reasonable doubt.

Specifically, the judge gave the following example:

If you were advised by your loved one’s physician that that loved one had a life- threatening illness and that the only protocol was a surgery, very likely you would ask for a second opinion. You’d probably get a third opinion. You’d probably start researching the illness, what is the protocol, is surgery really the only answer. You’d probably, if you’re like me, call everybody you know in medicine: What do you know about this illness? What do you know about this surgery? Who does this surgery across the country? What is my option.
At some moment, however, you’re going to be called upon to make a decision: Do you allow your loved one to go forward? If you go forward, it’s because you have moved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Baxter’s attorney did not object to this instruction at the time, and the rest of the reasonable doubt instruction was correct. Courts have repeatedly held that this example is defective and does not accurately convey the meaning of reasonable doubt. People facing a life-threatening illness are in fact very likely to move forward with even a risky procedure that could save them from the illness.

Baxter was convicted, and he eventually challenged the instruction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. § 2254 allows a defendant to challenge a state court conviction in federal court under certain circumstances. In this case, Baxter likely alleged that his original Post-Conviction Relief Act counsel was ineffective in raising the claim that trial counsel should have objected to this hypothetical. Where PCRA counsel has failed to raise a claim, federal courts have the ability to review the claim de novo under Martinez v. Ryan.

The Third Circuit’s Opinion

The Third Circuit accepted that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the instruction. The hypothetical does not provide an accurate example of reasonable doubt, and so counsel should have objected and challenged the issue in the state courts. The Third Circuit, however, found that Baxter was not entitled to a new trial because in addition to showing that trial counsel should have done something differently, a petitioner who is seeking relief under the PCRA or in a federal habeas petition must also show that had counsel done something differently, it could have produced a different result. This is known as prejudice. In other words, the petitioner must show that the ineffective performance tainted the outcome of the trial.

Baxter argued that improper jury instructions create a structural error that requires no showing of prejudice. Under his argument, he would therefore automatically receive a new trial regardless of how strong the Commonwealth’s case was. Structural errors do require a new trial, and some examples include violating the right to a public trial, a complete deprivation of the right to counsel, lack of an impartial judge, an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, and the denial of the right to proceed pro se.

The Third Circuit rejected this argument. It found that Baxter still had to show prejudice. Further, it concluded that because there were so many eyewitnesses who knew Baxter and claimed that he did the shooting, the strength of the case was overwhelming. The Court also reasoned that the rest of the instruction was correct and adequately conveyed the idea of reasonable doubt to the jury. Therefore, because the example likely did not impact the jury’s decision, Baxter could not show prejudice. He will therefore not receive a new trial.

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.