Com. v. Hyland
Citation | 875 A.2d 1175 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Thomas W. HYLAND, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 27 May 2005 |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Samuel Encarnacion, Lancaster, for appellant.
Alisa R. Hobart, Asst. Dist. Atty., Reading, for the Com., appellee.
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
¶ 1 Appellant, Thomas W. Hyland, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI")1 and related summary offenses.2 We affirm Appellant's convictions but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
¶ 2 The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts of the case as follows:
(Trial Court Opinion, entered August 11, 2004, at 1-4).
¶ 3 On October 25, 2002, the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against Appellant. Following a preliminary arraignment, Appellant posted $5,000.00 bail on November 18, 2002. Appellant applied for ARD consideration on December 3, 2002. On January 30, 2003, the Commonwealth denied Appellant's application for ARD but retained the hearing date of February 13, 2003 for his arraignment. Appellant's arraignment took place on February 13, 2003. At Appellant's request, a hearing was scheduled for April 29, 2003 on his proposed omnibus pre-trial motion.
¶ 4 Appellant then filed his omnibus pre-trial motion for writ of habeas corpus and for suppression of evidence on April 7, 2003.3 Specifically, Appellant asserted the police did not have enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of DUI. Further, Appellant averred his inculpatory statements made following his arrest should be suppressed, because the police did not have probable cause to justify the arrest. Appellant's pre-trial hearing took place on April 29, 2003. The trial court denied Appellant's motion by order entered May 30, 2003. On July 3, 2003, the court scheduled Appellant's trial for December 9, 2003.
¶ 5 On December 3, 2003, Appellant filed a Rule 600 motion to dismiss on the grounds that more than 365 days had passed since the Commonwealth filed its criminal complaint, and the Commonwealth had failed to use due diligence to bring Appellant to trial within the required period. The trial court conducted a Rule 600 hearing on January 21, 2004. At the hearing, Trooper Finkbiner testified he was a member of the United States Marine Corps. Reserves, and had been deployed to Iraq on January 13, 2003. (N.T. Rule 600 Hearing, 1/21/04, at 4). Trooper Finkbiner did not return to the United States until May 2003. (Id. at 7). Trooper Finkbiner resumed work with the Pennsylvania State Police on August 1, 2003. (Id.) By order entered February 2, 2004, the trial court denied Appellant's Rule 600 motion.
¶ 6 On February 4, 2004, a jury found Appellant guilty of DUI. The trial court also found Appellant guilty of the related summary offenses.4 On February 23, 2004, the court sentenced Appellant to three to twenty-three months' imprisonment in the Berks County Prison. Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions, in which he argued for the modification of his sentence, based on the trial court's failure to consider mitigating factors, such as Appellant's age, prior criminal record and good character. Further, Appellant requested a new trial because the trial court erred when it refused to allow evidence of Jay Geiger's prior convictions. Appellant also argued the court erred in denying his Rule 600 motion to dismiss. The trial court denied Appellant's post-trial motions by order entered May 11, 2004. This appeal followed.
¶ 7 Appellant raises the following three issues for our review:
¶ 8 In his first issue, Appellant contends the aggravated-range sentence he received is unreasonable and inappropriate. Appellant asserts the sentencing court ignored "substantial mitigating circumstances," and the totality of these circumstances mandated a sentence "in or near" the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. (Id. at 18). Additionally, Appellant maintains the sentencing court placed undue emphasis on the jury's decision not to accept Appellant's trial testimony as credible. Appellant concludes this Court must reverse and remand the matter for re-sentencing. Appellant's claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
¶ 9 Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to appellate review as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa.Super.2000). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue:
[W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine:...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parmelee v. Piazza
...the law, exercise of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or issuance of a manifestly unreasonable decision. See Com. v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1186 (Pa.Super.2005). A substantial question exists only if the sentence is inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamenta......
-
Commonwealth v. Reese
...ill will.Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 322, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (2000) (internal citation omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1186 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 586 Pa. 723, 890 A.2d 1057 (2005). “Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial......
-
Commonwealth v. Johnson
...for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision." Commonwealth v. Hyland , 875 A.2d 1175, 1184 (Pa. Super. 2005). Any attempt by a defendant to interfere with a witness' testimony is admissible to show a defendant's consciousness of g......
-
State v. Ciccone
...and, therefore, excludable [ ], since the complainant was deployed for military service in Korea"); Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1190–92 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005) ("The Commonwealth cannot be held to be acting without due diligence when a witness becomes unavailable due to circumstances ......