Delivery of Controlled Substances Calculation of Sentence Consideration of Out-of-State Conviction Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Eligibility
Commonwealth v. Quiles, PICS Case No. 17-1109 (Pa. Super. June 23, 2017) Dubow, J. (15 pages).
Trial court erred in determining appellant RRRI ineligible for Connecticut conviction for "third-degree assault" where the offense was not an equivalent offense to the Pennsylvania offense of simple assault because the Connecticut offense did not distinguish whether the assault occurred with mutual consent. Conviction affirmed, judgment of sentence reversed, case remanded for resentencing.
Appellant appealed sentence following his conviction of delivery of a controlled substance and criminal conspiracy. Appellant was arrested after he and his co-defendant pulled into a gas station for the co-defendant to make a pre-arranged sale of heroin to an undercover police officer. Following the controlled buy, officers entered the gas station and placed appellant under arrest. Appellant was transported to the police station, where officers conducted an interrogation in English. Appellant was advised of his Miranda rights, and signed a written waiver; appellant also signed consent forms for the search of his vehicle and phone.
Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress statements he gave to investigators and evidence they recovered from his car and phone, arguing that he did not sufficiently understand English and was under the influence of heroin at the time of the interrogation. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted appellant of his charges. The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate sentence of 9 to 30 years' imprisonment, finding that appellant was precluded from Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Eligibility due to his previous assault conviction in Connecticut.
On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and in its sentencing order by finding appellant was ineligible for RRRI. The court first affirmed the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress and appellant's conviction. The court noted that trial court's finding that appellant sufficiently understood English, as the interview recording demonstrated appellant was alert and could comprehend questions posed to him and fully answer those questions in English, and during trial appellant would confer with counsel before his interpreter translated statements into Spanish for appellant. Moreover, the trial court noted that appellant added margin notes to the Miranda waiver in English.
However, the court vacated appellant's judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing, agreeing with appellant that trial court erred in determining that his Connecticut record for assault rendered him RRRI ineligible. The court rejected appellant's assertion that the record failed to demonstrate that appellant was in fact convicted in Connecticut, noting that under Connecticut law, appellant's "unconditional discharge" from his assault charge was for all purposes a final judgment of conviction. But the court ruled that Connecticut's third-degree assault was not an equivalent offense to Pennsylvania's simple assault, since it did not distinguish between an assault by mutual consent, which was not RRRI disqualifying, with an assault that was initiated without consent, which was RRRI disqualifying, and therefore were based on differing policy determinations. The court rejected the trial court's attempt to circumvent the problem by referencing the hearing record in the Connecticut conviction, holding that courts could not look to the facts of the offense to establish equivalency.