Com. v. Haynick, M., Sr. ( 2017 )

J-S64033-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER HAYNICK, SR. :
:
Appellant : No. 511 MDA 2017
:
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-36-CR-0003915-2016, CP-36-CR-0003916-2016, CP-36-CR-
0003917-2016, CP-36-CR-0003918-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD,* J.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 14, 2017
Appellant, Michael Christopher Haynick, Sr., appeals from his judgment
of sentence of four and one-half to nine years’ imprisonment following his
guilty plea to a series of second-degree felony burglaries.1 Appellant argues
that the trial court was required to sentence him under the Recidivism Risk
Reduction Incentive (“RRRI”) Act, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501-4512, because his 2005
conviction for attempted first-degree burglary2 does not constitute a history
of past violent behavior. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand
for further proceedings.
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4), (c)(2).
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 901.
J-S64033-17
In April and May of 2016, Appellant committed six burglaries in various
commercial establishments. In June 2016, Appellant was arrested and
charged with six second-degree burglaries under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4).3
3 The version of the burglary statute under which Appellant was convicted
stated:
(a) Offense defined.—A person commits the offense of
burglary if, with the intent to commit a crime therein, the
person:
(1) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately
secured or occupied portion thereof that is adapted for
overnight accommodations in which at the time of the
offense any person is present;
(2) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately
secured or occupied portion thereof that is adapted for
overnight accommodations in which at the time of the
offense no person is present;
(3) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately
secured or occupied portion thereof that is not adapted
for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the
offense any person is present; or
(4) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately
secured or occupied portion thereof that is not adapted
for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the
offense no person is present.
18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a) (eff. 2012). Paragraphs (1) through (3) are graded as
felonies of the first degree, and paragraph (4) is graded as a felony of the
second degree, except in circumstances not relevant here. Id. at §
3502(c)(1)-(2). Appellant was charged with six violations of Section
3502(a)(4).
-2-
J-S64033-17
On February 9, 2017, Appellant entered an open guilty plea at the
above-captioned dockets and was sentenced to the aforementioned term of
imprisonment. Appellant requested sentencing under the RRRI Act, but the
sentencing judge declined on the ground that Appellant’s prior conviction in
2005 for attempted first-degree burglary4 constituted a history of violent
behavior.5 On February 17, 2017, Appellant filed timely post sentence
motions requesting, inter alia, a RRRI sentence. On February 27, 2017, a
different judge granted Appellant’s motion but vacated that order on March 6,
2017. On March 7, 2017, the sentencing judge granted Appellant’s post-
sentence motions on a matter unrelated to this appeal but denied Appellant’s
motion for RRRI sentencing.
On March 22, 2017, Appellant timely appealed to this Court. On March
23, 2017, the sentencing judge ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement within twenty-one days. On April 25, 2017, counsel for Appellant
4 Appellant concedes that he attempted to commit first-degree burglary under
the 1991 burglary statute. Appellant’s Brief at 6-8.
5 Although the sentencing transcript is not in the certified record, both parties
agree that Appellant requested RRRI treatment at sentencing, and that the
trial court denied this request due to his 2005 conviction for attempted
burglary. See Defendant’s Post Sentence Motions, at ¶ 12; Commonwealth’s
Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Granting Defendant’s Post Sentence
Motions, at ¶ 2. Thus, the absence of the sentencing transcript does not
preclude appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 105(a) (appellate court may
disregard requirements of any rule of appellate procedure on its own motion);
cf. Commonwealth v. Levy, 83 A.3d 457, 461 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(declining to quash appeal where defects in appellant’s brief did not impede
appellate review).
-3-
J-S64033-17
filed an untimely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. On May 10, 2017, the
sentencing judge filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion.6
Appellant raises two issues in this appeal:
I. Whether the trial court erred in determining that Appellant
was not RRRI eligible because of his prior conviction for
Criminal Attempt Burglary-Felony I?
II. Whether the trial court erred in determining that
Appellant was not RRRI eligible because [Appellant’s]
conviction for Felony 1 Attempted Burglary constituted a
history of violent behavior?
Appellant’s Brief at 4. We review these questions together. The issue, as we
see it, is whether Appellant has a history of present or past violent behavior
due to (1) his convictions for second-degree burglary in the present case, (2)
his 2005 conviction for attempted first-degree burglary, or (3) both of the
above. In our view, Appellant’s convictions for second-degree burglary do not
constitute a history of present or past violent behavior, but further
proceedings are required to determine whether his 2005 conviction for
attempted first-degree burglary evinces violent behavior.
6 The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that if an appellant
in a criminal case fails to file a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement
“such that the appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se
ineffective, the appellate court shall remand for the filing of a Statement nunc
pro tunc and for the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.” Here,
counsel did not fail to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement but simply filed it
after the deadline, and the sentencing judge thereupon prepared his opinion.
Under these circumstances, we need not take any action other than to caution
counsel to comply with court-ordered deadlines in the future. See
Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 432-33 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en
banc).
-4-
J-S64033-17
The RRRI Act is a penal statute, Commonwealth v. Chester, 101 A.3d
56, 60 n.6 (Pa. 2014), which
seeks to create a program that ensures appropriate
punishment for persons who commit crimes, encourages
inmate participation in evidence-based programs that
reduce the risks of future crime and ensures the openness
and accountability of the criminal justice process while
ensuring fairness to crime victims.
61 Pa.C.S. § 4502. As part of achieving that aim, the RRRI Act requires the
trial court to determine at the time of sentencing whether the defendant is an
“eligible offender.” 61 Pa.C.S. § 4505(a). If the court finds the defendant to
be an eligible offender, or if the prosecuting attorney waives the eligibility
requirements under Section 4505(b), the court must calculate minimum and
maximum sentences, and then impose the RRRI minimum sentence, which
“shall be equal to three-fourths of the minimum sentence imposed when the
minimum sentence is three years or less[,]” or “shall be equal to five-sixths
of the minimum sentence if the minimum sentence is greater than three
years.” 61 Pa.C.S. § 4505(c)(2). If an eligible offender “successfully
completes the program plan, maintains a good conduct record and continues
to remain an eligible offender[,]” he may “be paroled on the RRRI minimum
sentence date unless the Board of Probation and Parole determines that parole
would present an unreasonable risk to public safety or that other specified
conditions have not been satisfied.” 37 Pa. Code § 96.1(b).
-5-
J-S64033-17
To qualify for a RRRI minimum sentence, the defendant must establish
that he is an “eligible offender,” which the RRRI Act defines, in relevant part,
as follows:
A defendant or inmate convicted of a criminal offense who
will be committed to the custody of the [Department of
Corrections] and who meets all of the following eligibility
requirements:
(1) Does not demonstrate a history of present or past
violent behavior.
61 Pa.C.S. § 4503(1). The determination of whether the defendant fulfills
these standards “entails statutory interpretation,” for which “our review is de
novo and plenary.” Commonwealth v. Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d 1239, 1241
(Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).
TREATMENT OF APPELLANT’S SECOND-DEGREE BURGLARIES UNDER
THE RRRI ACT
Based on Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 10 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super.
2010), we hold that Appellant’s present second-degree burglary convictions
do not constitute “violent behavior” under Section 4503(1).
The defendant in Gonzalez pleaded guilty to a drug-related charge, but
the trial court declined to impose an RRRI sentence due to one prior conviction
for second-degree burglary. We reversed and remanded for an RRRI sentence
on the basis that second-degree burglary was not “violent behavior.”
Gonzalez, 10 A.3d at 1263. The 1991 version of the burglary statute, which
was in effect at the time of the defendant’s burglary, provided:
-6-
J-S64033-17
(a) Offense defined. —A person is guilty of burglary if he
enters a building or occupied structure, or separately
secured or occupied portion thereof, with intent to commit
a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to
the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter.
***
(c) Grading.—
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), burglary is a
felony of the first degree.
(2) If the building, structure or portion entered is not
adapted for overnight accommodation and if no
individual is present at the time of entry, burglary is
a felony of the second degree.
18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), (c) (eff. 1991) (emphasis added). In view of the bolded
text, we held that “an F2 burglary, by definition, does not involve the risk of
violence, or injury, to another person. It is solely an offense against the
property rights of the owner of the subject premises.” Gonzalez, 10 A.3d at
1262.
The legislature revised the burglary statute in 2012. The 2012 statute
was in force at the time of Appellant’s present convictions for burglary in 2016.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of the present appeal, the pertinent elements
of second-degree burglary in the revised statute are virtually the same as in
the 1991 version. Compare 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4) (eff. 2012) (defining
second degree burglary as entry, with intent to commit crime therein, “into a
building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion
thereof that is not adapted for overnight accommodations in which at the time
-7-
J-S64033-17
of the offense no person is present”) with 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(c)(2) (eff. 1991)
(defining second degree burglary entry into “building, structure or portion
entered is not adapted for overnight accommodation and if no individual is
present at the time of entry”). Thus, Gonzalez applies to the 2012 statute,
and second-degree burglary continues to remain non-violent behavior under
the RRRI Act.7
7 We think it important to mention that some tension appears to exist between
this Court’s decision in Gonzalez and our Supreme Court’s decision in
Chester, which suggests that all burglaries involve violent behavior,
regardless of their degree. Both Chester and Gonzalez addressed the pre-
2012 version of the burglary stature. In the course of holding that first-degree
burglary is violent behavior under the RRRI Act, Chester reasoned:
[A]lthough burglary involves the unlawful entry of another
person’s property, and although burglary is characterized as
a property crime for purposes of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Crime Report, it is well established within our case law
that “[b]urglary is a crime of violence as a matter of
law,” signifying that first-degree burglary necessarily
constitutes violent behavior in all contexts, including under
Section 4503(1). See Commonwealth v. Spotz, [] 47
A.3d 63, 104 ([Pa.] 2012) (finding appellant’s prior burglary
convictions were properly admitted as evidence of a
significant history of violent felony convictions pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9711(d)(9)). Indeed, as we noted in
Commonwealth v. Rolan, [] 549 A.2d 553 ([Pa.] 1988),
burglary has been treated as a crime of violence dating back
to the common law of England, which defined burglary as a
forcible invasion into the home with the intent to commit a
felony therein, and punished burglars with death “[b]ecause
of the great public policy involved in shielding the citizenry
from being attacked in their homes and in preserving
domestic tranquility.” Id. at 558 (citing Blackstone
Commentaries on the Law, Book IV, pp. 223–28). Based
upon those same motivations, and wishing to “protect
people from the threat of violence in other situations,” our
-8-
J-S64033-17
legislature expanded the common law scope of burglary
when it drafted the Crimes Code, including within its
definition various types of buildings and structures in
addition to the home, and extending the definition to
encompass both daytime and nighttime intrusions. Rolan,
549 A.2d at 558.
We continue to view burglary as a crime of violence
today based upon the well settled notion that “non-
privileged entry . . . poses a threat of violence to
persons.” [Commonwealth v.] Small, 980 A.2d [549,]
576 [(Pa. 2009)]; see also Rolan, 549 A.2d at 559 (“[T]he
crime of burglary has always been and continues to be
viewed as a crime involving the use or threat of violence to
the person”); Commonwealth v. Rios, [] 920 A.2d 790,
814 ([Pa.] 2007) (“[B]urglary is always classified as a
violent crime in Pennsylvania.”); Commonwealth v.
Pruitt, [] 951 A.2d 307, 321 ([Pa.] 2008) (citing cases
noting that burglary is a crime of violence in Pennsylvania).
While we have recognized that all burglaries are crimes of
violence for purposes of the significant history of violent
felony convictions aggravating circumstance for capital
sentencing, see 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9711(d)(9), as the Superior
Court implied in Gonzalez, the case is even stronger for
specifically construing the commission of the crime of first-
degree burglary as violent behavior under Section 4503(1),
given that, unlike second-degree burglary, first-degree
burglary is listed as a crime of violence under the recidivist
minimum sentencing provision in 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9714(g),
and the crime specifically renders an offender ineligible for
motivational boot camp pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S.[] § 3903.
Moreover, the Crimes Code treats first-degree burglary
distinctly from second-degree burglary, as first-degree
burglary contemplates the potential for confrontation,
whereas second-degree burglary does not. At the time
[a]ppellant was charged, the burglary statute distinguished
first-degree burglary from second-degree burglary based
upon whether the building or structure entered was adapted
for overnight accommodation and whether an individual was
present at the time of entry. . . . Only if neither of these
conditions were true—i.e., that there was no risk of
-9-
J-S64033-17
WHETHER APPELLANT’S SINGLE CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED
BURGLARY CONSTITUTES A HISTORY OF PRESENT OR PAST VIOLENT
BEHAVIOR
confrontation—was the entry a second-degree burglary.
Thus, in light of Pennsylvania’s long-standing view of
burglary as a violent crime, as well as the fact that first-
degree burglary is treated distinctly, and more severely,
under Pennsylvania law, we have no hesitancy in concluding
a conviction for first-degree burglary constitutes “violent
behavior” under Section 4503(1).
Furthermore, while Appellant contends his first-
degree burglary conviction was not “violent behavior”
because he did not employ violence during the
burglary, it is an offender’s non-privileged entry,
which “invit[es] dangerous resistance” and, thus, the
possibility of the use of deadly force against either the
offender or the victim, that renders burglary a violent
crime, not the behavior that is actually exhibited
during the burglary. Rolan, 549 A.2d at 559. Thus, the
fact that Appellant did not actually engage in any violent
acts while committing first-degree burglary does not render
that crime “non-violent.” Similarly, we decline to accept the
invitation of amicus to depart from our well established case
law—finding burglaries to be violent by their very nature—
to instead engage in a case-by-case evaluation into whether
a particular burglary conviction constitutes “violent
behavior” under Section 4503(1).
Chester, 101 A.3d at 64-65. Arguably, the bolded text indicates that all
burglaries are violent, whether first or second degree. But, because the only
question before the Chester Court was whether first-degree burglary
constitutes violent behavior, its reasoning only constitutes dicta with regard
to second-degree burglary. Thus, the theory that a second-degree burglary
poses a diminished risk of violence when the structure is not adapted for
overnight accommodation and no person is present remains a valid distinction
when determining whether a burglary conviction constitutes “violent
behavior.”
- 10 -
J-S64033-17
The question thus becomes whether Appellant’s decade-old conviction
for attempted first-degree burglary, a crime of violence under Chester,
constitutes a “history of present or past violent behavior” under the RRRI Act.
The trial court here concluded that Appellant’s first-degree felony conviction
constituted violent behavior because, in part, the legislature deemed first
degree attempted burglary as a crime of violence. We conclude that it does
not.
In Cullen-Doyle, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felony-
one burglary, as well as several counts of conspiracy to commit felony-one
burglary. Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d at 1241. The defendant requested a RRRI
sentence, which the trial court denied based on its belief that the defendant
had a prior felony-one burglary conviction. Id. The defendant appealed, and
this Court affirmed. Id. We noted that the record did not support the trial
court’s finding that the defendant had a prior record. Id. Nevertheless, we
concluded the defendant’s present conviction for felony-one burglary rendered
him ineligible for the RRRI program.8 Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Cullen-
Doyle, 133 A.3d 14 (Pa. Super. 2016)).
The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court arguing
that Section 4503(1) was not “intended to encompass a first-time, single-
count offender.” Id. The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal, and
8 The parties in Cullen-Doyle agreed that felony-one burglary established
“violent behavior.” Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d at 1240.
- 11 -
J-S64033-17
the defendant asserted that if the General Assembly intended to preclude such
offenders from RRRI-eligibility, it could have used broader language in Section
4503(1) to encompass any conviction involving violent behavior. 9 Id. The
defendant further suggested that excluding first-time offenders would
undermine the program’s goals of offering offenders “a second chance to
become law abiding citizens” and relieving taxpayers of some of the burdens
of “warehousing offenders[.]” Id. (citation omitted). The Commonwealth
responded that the phrase “history of present or past violent behavior” was
sufficiently broad to disqualify an offender based on a single violent crime.
Id. Alternatively, the Commonwealth asserted that a remand was necessary
to clarify the defendant’s prior record. Id. at 1241-42.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated this Court’s order, holding
that a “single, present conviction for a violent crime does not constitute a
history of violent behavior.” Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d at 1244 (citation
omitted). The Court noted that the phrase “history of present or past violent
behavior” in Section 4503(1) “could be read . . . to allow for the word history
to encompass a single, present offense[, or] to expressly authorize the
inclusion of the present offense in consideration of whether there is an overall
history, comprised of more than one offense.” Id. at 1242 n.2 (citations
omitted). The Court concluded that the Section 4503(1) was “materially
ambiguous” because “the word ‘history’ ordinarily concerns past events and
9 Appellant raises a similar argument in this appeal. Appellant’s Brief at 29.
- 12 -
J-S64033-17
can refer to a pattern of behavior” and proceeded to construe the intent of
General Assembly in light of the purposes of RRRI. Id. at 1242.
The Cullen-Doyle Court first noted that the RRRI program’s express
purpose was to encourage eligible offenders to participate in the program and
reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Id. (discussing 61 Pa.C.S. § 4504(b)).
The Court recognized a “commonly accepted corollary . . . that first-time
offenders are usually more amenable to reform than inmates who have
persisted in criminal conduct.” Id. (footnote omitted). In this light, the Court
concluded that the General Assembly “sought to offer greater reform
opportunities for first-time offenders than repeat offenders.” Id. at 1243.
Second, the Court analyzed the consequences of the divergent
interpretations of the RRRI-eligibility requirements. Id. The Court concluded
that “broadly construing” Section 4503 to find a defendant ineligible based on
“a single instance of ‘violence’” would be “so stringent that a large number of
individuals who could potentially reform” would be prevented from
participating in the program. Id. Such a construction would diminish the
program’s “potential utility.” Id. (footnote omitted). The Court recognized
that Section 4503 excludes individuals based on discrete factors, such as
conviction for enumerated offenses. Id. Because those discrete factors did
not include burglary, the Court found apt the principle of statutory
interpretation that the “‘inclusion of specific matters . . . implies the exclusion
of other matters.” Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d at 1243 (citation omitted). The
- 13 -
J-S64033-17
Court thus inferred that the General Assembly “did not intend for all crimes
of violence to be disqualifying in and of themselves.” Id. at 1244.
Lastly, having found ambiguity in the phrase “history of present or past
violent behavior” the Cullen-Doyle Court applied the “rule of lenity” to bolster
its conclusion that a “single, present conviction for a violent crime does not
constitute a history of violent behavior.” Id. The Court emphasized that “any
ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word ‘history’ should be resolved
in favor of those seeking admission into the program.”10 Id.
The specific holding of Cullen-Doyle—that a defendant’s “single,
present” conviction does not render the defendant ineligible for the RRRI
program—is not dispositive of the issue raised in the instant appeal, i.e., the
effect of a past conviction for a crime of violence. Nevertheless, the Court’s
reasoning in Cullen-Doyle persuades us that a single past conviction for
attempted felony-one burglary does not render Appellant RRRI-ineligible. As
noted in Cullen-Doyle, the phrase “history of present or past behavior” is
ambiguous, and an overly broad reading of the phrase would undermine the
10 Although the Cullen-Doyle Court concluded that the defendant’s single
present conviction did not render him ineligible for the RRRI program, the
Court found that “the need for clarification concerning [the defendant’s] prior
record may now have renewed salience . . . .” Id. at 1244. The Court noted
that this Court previously denied the parties’ joint motion for remand to
determine the defendant’s prior record and whether, as the trial court
suggested, the defendant had a prior conviction for felony-one burglary. Id.
at 1241, 1244. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the
case to this Court to resolve any further issues before remanding to the trial
court. Id. at 1244.
- 14 -
J-S64033-17
purposes of the statute by unduly restricting access to the program with the
potential to reform.11 Moreover, the General Assembly’s election not to
designate burglary among numerous discrete factors disqualifying a defendant
from RRRI implies the exclusion of a single conviction for attempted burglary
as a per se disqualifying crime of violence. Lastly, we must apply the rule of
lenity to resolve the ambiguity in Section 4503(1) in favor of eligibility.
Applying this reasoning to the present case, we hold that a single, past
conviction for attempted felony-one burglary does not disqualify a defendant
from eligibility in the RRRI program.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding that
Appellant’s single, past conviction for attempted felony-one burglary
necessarily rendered him ineligible for the RRRI program under Section
4503(1). Thus, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for
reconsideration of Appellant’s eligibility for the RRRI program.
Judgment of sentence vacated in part. Case remanded for consideration
of Appellant’s eligibility for the RRRI program. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Shogan Joins the Memorandum.
Judge Panella Notes Dissent.
11 Additionally, eligibility for the RRRI program does not create a right to be
paroled on the expiration of the RRRI minimum sentence. Rather, release on
a RRRI sentence is contingent on the defendant’s successful completion of the
program as well as a discretionary decision by the Board of Probation and
Parole.
- 15 -
J-S64033-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/14/2017
- 16 -