Com. v. Alicea

• Decision Date: 13 September 1982
• Citation: 498 Pa. 575,449 A.2d 1381
• Parties: , 34 A.L.R.4th 878 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Pedro Antonio ALICEA.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 1381

449 A.2d 1381

498 Pa. 575, 34 A.L.R.4th 878

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Pedro Antonio ALICEA.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 16, 1982.

Decided Sept. 13, 1982.

Flora L. Becker, Philadelphia (Court-appointed), for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., David Da Costa, Asst. Dist. Attys., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before O'BRIEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

HUTCHINSON, Justice.

In this direct appeal from judgment of sentence, appellant, Pedro Antonio Alicea, raises the issue of whether the trial court erred at sentencing by considering appellant's initial defense of an alibi, withdrawn prior to trial, as warranting an increased sentence. ¹

On the afternoon of April 4, 1978, appellant had an argument with the victim when the latter's bicycle was stolen. Shortly thereafter appellant purchased a .38 caliber revolver and proceeded to a neighborhood bar. He there encountered the victim who, upon seeing him at the door, exited the bar and walked up to appellant. Appellant shot the victim. ² As a result of this single shot, the victim died approximately one month later.

Prior to trial appellant's counsel had filed a notice of alibi defense as required by Rule 305(C)(1)(a), Pa. R. Crim. P. The day before trial was to commence, however, he withdrew it.

At trial, appellant proceeded on a theory of self-defense. He testified that, at the time of their initial confrontation, the victim had threatened to kill both him and his family. He also testified that he knew the victim to be a violent person and that he purchased the gun out of fear the victim would make good his threats. At their second meeting, he said the victim approached him outside the bar and stated, "You came so that I can kill you. I am going to kill you now." N.T. at 3.35. Thereupon, he testified, he shot the victim in self-defense.

The trial court, sitting as trier of fact, convicted appellant of possession of an instrument of crime ³ and of voluntary manslaughter. ⁴ He was sentenced to two and one half to five years imprisonment on the former, and four to ten years imprisonment on the latter. The sentences were to run concurrently. In imposing sentence the court stated:

I am clearly stating that I did not know anything about the alibi defense, and, of course, the pre-sentence investigators when they recommended probation for you did not know about the two stories you told--I am not saying that I would have followed their recommendations completely, but I would have not given a sentence as long as I have given you.

The sentence that I would have given you would have been--I am giving the total that you would have had to serve in jail--not more than two years in jail--excuse me, not less than two years in jail nor more than ten years in jail.

In effect, what you have gotten is an extra two years in jail on your minimum because of the lie perpetrated upon the Court and because I feel that your continual lying convinces me that you are not on your way toward the good life.

N.T.S.H. at 44-45.

Without asserting that United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978) is limited to federal sentencing practices and that Commonwealth v. Thurmond, 268 Pa. Super. Ct. 283, 407 A.2d 1357 (1979), is wrongly decided under Pennsylvania law, appellant distinguishes them and argues the court erred in considering the withdrawn alibi defense as evidence of perjury which would allow enhancement of sentence. We agree.

In Grayson the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a court could enhance a sentence based, in part, upon its first-hand observation of a defendant's false testimony at trial. The defendant in Grayson had escaped from a federal prison camp. His account of the flight and the reasons for it was contradicted by rebuttal evidence and by cross-examination of the defendant himself on crucial aspects of the story. The defendant was convicted by a jury and thereafter sentenced. At sentencing the court stated:

In my view a prison sentence is indicated, and the sentence that the Court is going to impose is to deter you, Mr. Grayson, and others who are similarly situated. Secondly, it is my view that your defense was a complete fabrication without the slightest merit whatsoever. I feel it is proper for me to consider that fact in the sentencing, and I will do so.

Id. 438 U.S. at 44, 98 S.Ct. at 2612 (emphasis added in original).

On appeal the defendant argued that the sentence constituted punishment for the crime of perjury, a crime for which he had never been convicted, and therefore was violative of due process. He also argued that allowing a sentencing court to consider arguably perjured testimony of a defendant would chill the right to testify in one's own behalf.

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments. Instead, it concluded that, since sentencing judges had traditionally exercised wide discretion in terms of the type of evidence relied upon at sentencing, and since such an inquiry is grounded in the legitimate goal of evaluating a defendant's personality and the prospects for rehabilitation, it was proper for the court to determine defendant's testimony at trial was perjured and to consider that perjury as a factor at sentencing. In so concluding, the Court stated:

Nothing we say today requires a sentencing judge to enhance, in some wooden or reflex fashion, the sentences of all defendants whose testimony is deemed false. Rather, we are reaffirming the authority of a sentencing judge to evaluate carefully a defendant's testimony on the stand, determine--with a consciousness of the frailty of human judgment--whether that testimony contained willful and material falsehoods, and, if so, assess in light of all the other knowledge gained about the defendant the meaning of that conduct with respect to his prospects for rehabilitation and restoration to a useful place in society.

Id. at 55, 98 S.Ct. at 2618.

Although this Court has neither considered nor measured the parameters of Grayson, the Superior Court, in Commonwealth v. Thurmond, supra, did examine and apply its tenets. Affirming the prerogative of a sentencing court to consider false testimony, the court in Thurmond stated:

[C]onsideration of false testimony is justified only if certain requisites, guaranteeing the probative value of this evidence, are satisfied .... First, the misstatements must be willful.... Unless the defendant has willfully offered false testimony, the fact that the testimony was untrue does not of itself show that the defendant is not likely to respond to efforts at rehabilitation. Second, the misstatement must be material, not of marginal importance .... Only material falsehoods sufficiently bear on a defendant's character to justify enhancing punishment. Third, the verdict of guilt must necessarily establish that the defendant lied, not merely that the jury did not believe his testimony.... This requirement ensures that a defendant can receive a stiffer penalty based on giving false testimony only when the finder of fact has determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the testimony was willfully false. Fourth, the verdict must be supported by sufficient credible evidence. If the jury's verdict is to form the basis for enhancement of sentence, that verdict must have a rational foundation in evidence of record .... Fifth, the trial court, if not acting as the trier of fact, must observe the testimony allegedly false.... The cold record of the testimony and the verdict affords a meager basis for the sentencing court to determine whether the defendant's testimony demonstrated a character not likely susceptible to rehabilitation. Finally, the court may consider the defendant's lying only as one fact among many bearing on sentence.

Id. 268 Pa.Super. at 287-88, 407 A.2d at 1359-60 (citations and parentheticals omitted). Without digressing upon the merits of the Superior Court's analysis of Grayson, we do wish to delineate its requisites and to distinguish it from the present case.

The defendant in Grayson, unlike appellant, was deemed to have committed perjury while testifying at trial. ⁵ In arriving at its determination, the Court in Grayson emphasized the importance and impact of perjured testimony at trial with respect to the trial court's evaluation of a defendant's demeanor and rehabilitative prospects. Thus the Court held that neither due process nor fifth amendment rights would preclude a sentencing court from considering, as one factor, deliberate false testimony of material facts as reflective of a defendant's character for purposes of sentencing. This holding should not be extended to include a discarded notice of alibi defense. Therefore, although a sentencing court, where it has observed false testimony as to a material fact at trial, may consider the defendant's perjury as one factor in imposing an appropriate sentence, it may not so consider an abandoned, albeit fabricated, notice of alibi defense.

If this Court were to adopt the theory advanced by the Commonwealth, i.e. that the court could "consider defendant's attempt to deceive the court with perjured testimony as a valid reason for enhancing his sentence," Brief for Commonwealth at 6 (emphasis added), ⁶ a defendant, once having filed a fabricated alibi defense notice would perforce be compelled to pursue it. That is, a defendant could not abandon the fabrication without risking the possibility of an enhanced sentence. Such a result would not only be needlessly harsh but would also deter future defendants from testifying truthfully. ⁷

In addition, as the Court in Grayson noted, "It is unprofessional conduct for a lawyer knowingly to offer false evidence, whether by documents, tangible evidence, or the testimony of witnesses." ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Defense Function § 7.5(a) (Approved Draft 1971). An extension of Grayson to the...