Com. v. Ellison, S.

J-S25010-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SOLOMON MCKEEVER ELLISON, III,
Appellant No. 743 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 5, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0000167-2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
Appellant, Solomon Mckeever Ellison, III, appeals from the judgment
of sentence of an aggregate term of 30 to 60 years’ incarceration, followed
by 2 years’ probation, imposed after he was convicted of, inter alia,
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI). On appeal, Appellant avers
that his sentence is illegal, and that the trial court erred by replacing a
principal juror with an alternate juror after deliberations had begun. After
careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of Appellant’s case, as follows:
The incident in question occurred on December 9, 2013.
[Appellant] and the Victim[] met online through [a] website.
The Victim testified she went on the website because she needed
money. She started talking to [Appellant] frequently during the
few days before the incident in question. They discussed her
financial issues and [Appellant] told her he would pay her for
oral sex. Eventually, the two made a plan to meet at her house.
On the afternoon of December 9th, [Appellant] arrived at the
J-S25010-17
Victim’s house. Initially, [Appellant] and the Victim sat down to
talk and smoke marijuana that she provided for them. After
smoking, [Appellant] took out some money to pay the Victim for
the agreed upon sexual contact, however, he only produced forty
dollars even though they previously agreed to a payment of one
hundred dollars. When the Victim refused to comply with
[Appellant’s] requests, he grabbed her hair, pulled her face to
his crotch, and unbuttoned his pants. He also took out a box
cutter. The Victim began to perform oral sex. He put the knife
to the Victim’s chin, and then he cut the bottom of her chin,
which she did not notice until she saw blood on his pants. She
back[ed] away to see what was wrong and a fight between the
two ensued. [Appellant] attempted to drag the Victim up the
stairs, however, the Victim resisted. When she resisted by
screaming and pushing him, [Appellant] lifted her up [and] then
slammed her onto the floor[,] as well as elbowing her in the
face. When she pushed him back again … he fled out through
the back [door]. Then, the Victim asked for help from a
neighbor and called the police. The fight resulted in multiple
injuries for the Victim[,] including bruises and an injured hand
from [her hand] going through a window during the fight.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 8/10/16, at 2-3. In addition to this conduct,
Appellant also fled from police when they attempted to arrest him. He was
ultimately apprehended, however, and charged with various offenses.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial and, on October 16, 2015, he was
convicted of IDSI by forcible compulsion, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(1); IDSI by
threat of forcible compulsion, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(2); indecent assault by
forcible compulsion, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(2); indecent assault by threat of
forcible compulsion, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(3); indecent assault without
consent, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(1); and sexual assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1.
On February 5, 2016, Appellant was sentenced to the aggregate term stated
supra, which included a 25 year, mandatory minimum sentence for his IDSI
by forcible compulsion conviction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2 (requiring a
-2-
J-S25010-17
mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years’ incarceration for “[a]ny person
who is convicted … of an offense set forth in section 9799.14 (relating to
sexual offenses…)” and who, “at the time of the commission of the current
offense … had previously been convicted of an offense set forth in section
9799.14 or an equivalent crime under the laws of this Commonwealth”).
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also timely complied
with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal. Herein, Appellant presents two issues for
our review:
[I.] Whether the IDSI conviction coupled with 42 Pa.C.S. [§]
9718.2 constitutes a new, aggravated crime making the
mandatory minimum sentence of 25 to 50 years illegal?
[II.] Whether the … [t]rial [c]ourt erred when it employed the
per se standard while reconstituting the jury during
deliberations?
Appellant’s Brief at 9.
In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court imposed an
illegal sentence when it applied the mandatory minimum term of 25 years’
incarceration required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2. Appellant presents two
arguments regarding why section 9718.2 is unconstitutional. First, he
claims that it violates the rule announced in Alleyne v. United States, 133
S. Ct. 2151 (2013), which held that any fact that increases a mandatory
minimum sentence is an element of the crime that must be found, beyond a
reasonable doubt, by the fact-finder. Appellant avers that section 9718.2
violates Alleyne because it contains a “proof at sentencing” provision that
-3-
J-S25010-17
explicitly states that “[t]he provisions of this section shall not be an element
of the crime,” and that “[t]he applicability of this section shall be determined
at sentencing.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2(c) (emphasis added). Appellant points
to other mandatory minimum statutes that have been struck down as
unconstitutional because they contain this same ‘proof at sentencing’
provision. See Appellant’s Brief at 15-16 (citing Commonwealth v. Wolfe,
140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (striking down 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 as
unconstitutional under Alleyne), and Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117
A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (holding that 42 Pa.C.S. § 6317 is unconstitutional
under Alleyne). Second, Appellant avers that section 9718.2 creates “a
new, aggravated offense” and, therefore, the Commonwealth was required
to provide notice of its intent to seek imposition of this mandatory sentence
in the charging documents. Because the Commonwealth did not, Appellant
contends that his due process rights were violated and his resulting sentence
is illegal.
We will address Appellant’s second argument first. We stress that the
explicit language of section 9718.2 states that notice of the Commonwealth’s
intent to seek application of that provision “shall not be required prior to
conviction….” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2(c) (emphasis added). Thus, the very
language of the statute defeats Appellant’s argument that the
Commonwealth was required to inform him of the mandatory sentence in
the charging documents. Moreover, our Supreme Court recently rejected
(albeit, in a per curiam order) the claim that section 9718.2 creates a new,
-4-
J-S25010-17
aggravated crime which requires notice prior to trial. See Commonwealth
v. Macklin, 2017 WL 3623391 (Pa. 2017) (per curiam order affirming this
Court’s decision that section 9718.2 does not require notice in the charging
document). In light of the plain language of the statute, and the Supreme
Court’s order in Macklin, we reject Appellant’s argument that pretrial notice
of the applicability of section 9718.2 was required.
We also reject Appellant’s claim that the statute is unconstitutional
under Alleyne. The application of the mandatory sentence in section
9718.2 was triggered by Appellant’s prior conviction for an offense set forth
in section 9799.14. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2(a)(1).
Prior convictions are the remaining exception to Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435
(2000), and Alleyne…, insofar as a factfinder is not required to
determine disputed convictions beyond a reasonable doubt to
comport with the Sixth Amendment jury trial right. See
Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118
S. Ct. 1219, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998). However, the viability of
this holding has been questioned, see Almendarez–Torres,
supra (Scalia, J. dissenting); Apprendi, supra (Thomas, J.
concurring), and five Justices appear to disagree with the
Almendarez holding, to the extent a conviction would increase
a defendant's maximum sentence; namely, Justices Scalia,
Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. As noted by this
Court, “[t]he precise issue has yet to be reconsidered by the
United States Supreme Court following Apprendi. See Alleyne,
supra at 2160 n. 1.” Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108,
117 n. 3 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc).
Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570, 585 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2014). Thus,
because the mandatory minimum sentences under section 9718.2 are
-5-
J-S25010-17
premised on prior convictions, that statute is not unconstitutional under the
current state of the law.
In Appellant’s next issue, he maintains that the trial court erred by
replacing a principal juror (hereinafter, “Juror 10”) with an alternate juror
after deliberations had begun. By way of background, approximately one
hour after the jurors began to deliberate in this case, Juror 10 informed the
court that she could not properly consider evidence that Appellant had been
convicted of motor vehicle robbery because she had been adjudicated
delinquent of that same offense as a juvenile. See N.T. Trial, 10/16/15, at
89-90. Specifically, Juror 10 stated:
Juror #10: … I told [the other jurors] that I could not convict
[Appellant] on his history of the motor vehicle robbery because I
once too was adjudicated delinquent for the same exact charges.
So I can’t use that history to make my decisions on him.
N.T. Trial, 10/16/15, at 90. However, when the court further questioned
Juror 10, she stated that she could follow the court’s instructions and
consider Appellant’s conviction for motor vehicle robbery in evaluating his
credibility. Id. at 96-97. Nevertheless, the court determined that Juror 10
should be removed, and empaneled an alternate juror in her place. Id. at
100-01.
Appellant now claims that the court erred by dismissing Juror 10. In
support, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626 (Pa.
Super. 2014). There, a juror in Pander’s trial became extremely upset over
viewing photographs of the deceased victim. Id. at 631. However, the trial
-6-
J-S25010-17
court declined Pander’s request to replace that juror with an alternate
because, after questioning, the juror had twice indicated that she could
remain impartial, “notwithstanding her emotional reaction….” Id. On
appeal, Pander essentially contended that the juror was per se prejudiced,
and that she should have been dismissed despite her statements that she
could remain impartial. Id.
This Court rejected Panders’ ‘per se prejudice’ argument, noting that
the juror’s conduct must be assessed to decide the degree of prejudice, and
whether the court had abused its discretion in deciding to remove that juror.
Id. at 632. Ultimately, we concluded that “becoming upset over a
photograph of a murder victim” did not indicate prejudice or “an inability to
consider the evidence impartially.” Id. at 632-33. We also stressed that
“the trial court was satisfied by the juror’s response that he or she could
remain fair[,]” and because “the trial court … had the opportunity to view
the juror in question,” we refused to reconsider the court’s decision. Id.
In the present case, the entirety of Appellant’s argument regarding
how our decision in Pander compels reversal in this case is as follows:
[The] [t]rial [c]ourt employed the per se analysis that it
says it would have used during voir dire had Juror 10 then
disclosed [that] she had been adjudicated delinquent for misuse
of an automobile. The [c]ourt applied the wrong standard to the
detriment of [Appellant,] who wanted Juror 10 to continue
deliberating and trial counsel preserved the issue. This was
error under Pander because it was an abuse of discretion to in
effect strike Juror 10 for cause and ignore her proclamation of
impartiality.
Appellant’s Brief at 25.
-7-
J-S25010-17
Appellant’s brief argument does not compel us to conclude that the
trial court abused its discretion. See Commonwealth v. Treiber, 874 A.2d
26, 31 (Pa. 2005) (“The discharge of a juror is within the sound discretion of
the trial court. Absent a palpable abuse of that discretion, the court’s
determination will not be reversed.”). Notably, the record does not support
his claim that the court applied a per se prejudice standard. Instead, the
record indicates that the court assessed Juror 10’s statements indicating that
she could not properly assess the evidence of Appellant’s prior conviction, as
well as her claims that she could follow the court’s instructions pertaining to
that evidence. In weighing the credibility of Juror 10’s conflicting
statements, the court also considered the fact that in its view, Juror 10 had
not been forthcoming about her own criminal history during jury voir dire.
Id. at 100-01. Ultimately, the court determined that Juror 10 should be
dismissed, obviously premising that decision on its determination that Juror
10 was not credible. See id. Thus, the trial court here undertook a
credibility assessment that was similar to the trial court in Pander, but
simply reached the opposite conclusion that the principal juror should be
replaced. We ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision.1
____________________________________________
1
We also point out that the trial court took protective measures when
empaneling the alternate juror, including colloquying the alternate juror and
instructing the jury to begin their deliberations anew. See id. at 107-113.
Appellant does not acknowledge, let alone challenge, the propriety of these
efforts. Therefore, while a presumption of prejudice to the defendant arises
when an alternate juror is substituted after deliberations have begun, it is
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-S25010-17
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins this memorandum.
Judge Ransom concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/26/2017
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
apparent that that presumption was rebutted in this case. See
Commonwealth v. Saunders, 686 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. 1996)
(declaring that, “where the trial court has substituted an alternate juror after
deliberations have begun, there is a presumption of prejudice to the
defendant[,]” which may be rebutted through “evidence which establishes
that sufficient protective measures were taken to insure the integrity of the
jury function”).
-9-