Commonwealth v. Tighe
Citation | 184 A.3d 560 |
Decision Date | 12 April 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 266 MDA 2017,266 MDA 2017 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Patrick TIGHE, Appellant |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Terrence J. McDonald, Dunmore, for appellant.
Mariclare Hayes, Assistant District Attorney, Scranton, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Patrick Tighe appeals from the judgment of sentence of twenty to forty years incarceration, imposed following his convictions for, inter alia , rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse ("IDSI"), and sexual assault. We affirm the convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence.
The trial court thoroughly set forth the facts underlying Appellant's convictions in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which we adopt herein:
Trial Court Opinion, 7/28/16, at 7–10 ( ).
Appellant represented himself at trial, and was convicted and sentenced on October 25, 2013 to an aggregate sentence of twenty to forty years incarceration. That sentence included the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences of ten to twenty years incarceration at the counts of rape and IDSI. The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of one to two years at indecent assault, and an additional concurrent sentence of eight to sixteen years incarceration at unlawful contact with a minor.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions. The transcription of the notes of testimony was significantly delayed, leading to a September 18, 2015 motion requesting reinstatement of his post-sentence motion rights nunc pro tunc . The Commonwealth consented to this request, leading to a second set of post-sentence motions. While those motions remained active, the Commonwealth requested that the trial court vacate and resentence Appellant due to subsequent caselaw pertaining to mandatory minimum sentences.
On January 13, 2016, the trial court resentenced Appellant to the same aggregate sentence of twenty to forty years incarceration. However, as relevant to one of his issues on appeal, the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence for indecent assault whereas the original scheme called for a concurrent sentence at that charge.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and complied with the trial court's order to file a concise statement.1 The trial court authored its opinion, and the matter is ready for review. Appellant raises eleven issues, which we have reordered for ease of discussion.2
Appellant's brief at 5–7 (reordered).
Appellant's first argument appears to be an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction, and addresses the fact that the trial court granted the Commonwealth's motion to prohibit Appellant from personally cross-examining J.E. The Commonwealth filed the motion after Appellant, while at liberty and awaiting trial, contacted J.E. and asked her, N.T., 6/4/13, at 42. Following an evidentiary hearing at which J.E. testified to those facts and that the call scared her, the trial court granted the motion and required Appellant to provide Attorney Christopher Osborne, Appellant's stand-by counsel, with the questions he wished to ask J.E. at trial. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Tighe
...behalf using written questions prepared by [a]ppellant in advance of cross-examination and/or questioning[.]" See Commonwealth v. Tighe , 184 A.3d 560, 565 (Pa. Super. 2018). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court did not discuss forfeiture as a basis for its decision to deny appellan......
-
Commonwealth v. Betts
...entitlement to the assistance of counsel "does not include the right to counsel of the defendant's choice." Commonwealth v. Tighe , 184 A.3d 560, 576 (Pa.Super. 2018). However, we can discern no other mechanism other than the appointment of substitute PCRA counsel to ensure that Appellant's......
-
Bundy v. Wetzel
... ... The common pleas court agreed it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Commonwealth Court because the complaint was filed against Commonwealth officers acting in 184 A.3d 555their official capacity. See 42 Pa.C.S. 761(a)(1), (b) ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Mumaw
...in the sound discretion of the 13 court and a denial thereof will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Tighe, 184 A.3d 560, 580 (Pa.Super. 2018). The trial court determined that Appellant was indigent and ordered the Schuylkill County Public Defender to provide hi......