Com. v. Chavis, J.

J-S20018-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN ALLEN CHAVIS :
:
Appellant : No. 1681 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0002660-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2018
John Allen Chavis appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on
September 13, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on
the charge of criminal use of a communication facility (CUCF).1 Chavis
received a sentence of 18 to 60 months’ incarceration. In this timely appeal,
Chavis raises three claims, all of which relate to his exercise of the 5 th
Amendment right during allocution. Because the record is unclear if the
invocation of the 5th Amendment was proper, we vacate the sentence and
remand for an in camera proffer, if necessary, and resentencing.
A brief recitation of the history of this matter is required. Chavis was
arrested after selling heroin to a confidential informant. He was charged with
CUCF, possession with intent to deliver, possession, and possession of drug
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a).
J-S20018-18
paraphernalia. He accepted a plea agreement wherein all charges except
CUCF would be dropped and the Commonwealth would not oppose furlough
to a drug treatment facility. Prior to sentencing, the trial court granted Chavis
a furlough to a local Salvation Army center for drug treatment. He completed
five of six months of the program before he absconded. He was apprehended
and charged with escape. Following his apprehension, he was sentenced, as
noted above, on the CUCF charge. Prior to sentencing, Chavis asked the trial
court for a continuance until his escape charge had resolved. Chavis informed
the court that he believed he could not adequately explain his actions
regarding absconding from the Salvation Army program without incriminating
himself on the open escape charge. The trial court, without conducting a
hearing on the 5th Amendment claim, denied the request for continuance,
asserting the escape charge had no bearing on the resentencing. At the
sentencing hearing, Chavis again explained he believed his right to allocution
was improperly limited by his invocation of the 5th Amendment.
Initially, we note the following:
Appellate review of a trial court's continuance decision is
deferential. The grant or denial of a motion for a
continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court
and will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of
discretion. As we have consistently stated, an abuse of
discretion is not merely an error of judgment. Rather,
discretion is abused when the law is overridden or
misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or
ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record[.]
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 628 Pa. 524, 529-30, 104 A.3d 466(2014) (quotations marks, quotation, and citation omitted).
-2-
J-S20018-18
This Court has observed that “[t]rial judges necessarily require a
great deal of latitude in scheduling trials. Not the least of their
problems is that of assembling the witnesses, lawyers, and jurors
at the same place at the same time, and this burden counsels
against continuances except for compelling reasons.”
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663, 671 (Pa. Super.
2013) (quotation omitted). However, the trial court exceeds the
bounds of its discretion when it denies a continuance on the basis
of “an unreasonable and arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness
in the face of a justifiable request for delay[.]” Id. at 672(quotation marks and quotation omitted). Accordingly, we must
examine the reasons presented to the trial court for requesting
the continuance, as well as the trial court's reasons for denying
the request. See id.Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa. Super. 2016).
Further, Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(C)(1) grants a defendant the right of
allocution prior to imposition of sentence, stating, in relevant part:
At the time of sentencing, the judge shall afford the defendant the
opportunity to make a statement in his or her behalf…
Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(C)(1).
The comment to Rule 704(C)(1) is strongly worded.
Paragraph (C)(1) retains the former requirement that the judge
afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement… . The
defendant’s right to allocution at sentencing is well established… .
Id., Comment (emphasis added).
The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides “no
person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself.” U.S. Const. amend V. The right against self-incrimination applies
not only to the case in which the defendant is currently testifying, but prevents
the defendant from being compelled to give answers that “might incriminate
-3-
J-S20018-18
[the speaker] in future criminal proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Knoble,
42 A.3d 976, 979 (Pa. 2012).
When Chavis requested a continuance of the sentencing hearing, the
letter to the trial court stated:
As the facts and circumstances of the [Chavis’s] pending charges
may very well be a topic that could come up at today’s sentencing,
when Defense Counsel makes sentencing arguments and/or when
[Chavis] is given the opportunity to speak on his own behalf,
[Chavis’s] Fifth Amendment Rights are implicated. [Chavis] either
speaks at sentencing, potentially waiving his Fifth Amendment
Rights, or he stands silent at Sentencing and he is thereby
deprived of the Due Process Rights of having the opportunity to
be heard prior to having a sentence imposed on him. The decision
to choose between Constitutional Rights and in which proceeding
[Chavis] should take action that could severely prejudice him,
should not be one (1) [sic] that he is forced to make.
Letter to the Court, 9/13/2017, at 1-2.2
Later that day, at the sentencing hearing, Defense Counsel repeated his
5th Amendment concerns, resulting in this exchange between Counsel and the
trial judge:
THE COURT: This matter has been scheduled for sentencing
several times since January of 2017 and there is no reason to
continue it beyond today. The fact that there is an outstanding
charge has absolutely no impact whatsoever on these
proceedings. I may not consider the fact that there is an
uncharged crime. It is not a conviction. It does not count on the
prior record score. It has absolutely no impact, nor will it be given
any consideration in the imposition of this sentence.
____________________________________________
2 This letter memorialized a verbal request Defense Counsel had made the
prior day. The letter was delivered to the trial court on the morning of the
sentencing hearing. We note the continuance request was not denied as
untimely.
-4-
J-S20018-18
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The purpose, Your Honor, of the request
for continuance was that the facts and circumstances surrounding
the new charge that’s pending before the Court would potentially
be raised in my argument –
THE COURT: Why should it be raised? Why should they be raised?
They have nothing to do with this. The events took place
afterwards. They have nothing to do with the C.U.C.F. that took
place on December 7, 2015.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: They would have relevance, Your Honor, as
to whether he should be given full credit for the Salvation Army
program. He can’t speak –
THE COURT: The Salvation Army credit is totally up to me. It’s
discretionary with the Court. Given the furlough that was granted,
the fact that he went AWOL from that program and remained
absent for almost two months before he was apprehended, he will
not receive credit for the time at the Salvation Army.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And Your Honor, my point in raising that
issue respectfully is that he can’t speak to that issue here today,
nor can I, as it would relate to his escape charge that’s still
pending. He’s been advised of his Fifth Amendment right, and I
believe he’ll be asserting that today with regard to just that issue.
THE COURT: Fine.
N.T. Sentencing, 9/13/2017, at 3-5.
It appears from the foregoing exchange, the trial judge misapprehended
the gist of Chavis’s argument. The trial judge did not understand how details,
facts and circumstances of Chavis’s absconding from his furlough at the
Salvation Army could be relevant. However, Chavis’s flight and his failure to
complete his furlough was proffered as part of his allocution. As such, while
the relevance of the circumstances surrounding Chavis’s absconding may
prove to be irrelevant, relevance cannot be denied facially.
-5-
J-S20018-18
It appears clear to us that Chavis was attempting to request he be given
full credit for the time in the Salvation Army program, but was afraid that the
explanation would be used against him in the case arising from his escape.
The purpose of allocution at sentencing is to provide a defendant with the
opportunity to explain his actions and to provide possibly mitigating factors.
While a trial court is not required to believe a defendant’s allocution, the trial
court is required to hear the allocution and consider it.
Once Chavis raised his colorable claim of 5th Amendment privilege, the
trial court had multiple methods to proceed. The trial court could have
accepted the claim on face value and rescheduled the sentencing hearing.
Another option was the trial court could have held an in camera proffer, where
the defendant might provide an outline of the substance of his claim, thereby
allowing the trial court to determine if Chavis was actually entitled to 5th
Amendment protection. If Chavis was properly invoking his right against self-
incrimination, the hearing could then be rescheduled. If, however, the trial
court determined Chavis’s claim did not properly invoke the 5th Amendment,
Chavis would have had the option to immediately appeal the decision 3 or to
accept the ruling and proceed to sentencing.
However, by denying Chavis’s request for a continuance and bypassing
Chavis’s 5th Amendment claim, the trial court denied Chavis a meaningful
____________________________________________
3 A decision denying a defendant Fifth Amendment protection is an
immediately appealable collateral order. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 176
A.3d 869 (Pa. Super. 2017), citing Ben v. Schwartz, 729 A.2d 547 (Pa.
1999).
-6-
J-S20018-18
opportunity to present mitigating evidence, the very purpose of allocution.
This denial, without knowing the substance of Chavis’s claim, represents an
abuse of discretion.
In light of the foregoing, we vacate the judgment of sentence and
remand for a new sentencing hearing, including an in camera hearing, if
necessary. Said hearing is to be held as soon as practicable, but not later than
60 days after the return of the certified record to the trial court, provided that
Chavis’s 5th Amendment claim has resolved.4
Judgment of sentence vacated. This matter is remanded for action
consistent with this decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 08/20/2018
____________________________________________
4It appears that the escape charge has resolved. Therefore, it appears that
Chavis’s 5th Amendment claim has also resolved. If this is true, the in camera
hearing is likely unnecessary.
-7-