COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SYVOL BOWEN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SYVOL BOWEN No. 1551 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 94 Atlantic: 975 A.2d 1120 Filed: 5/21/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated April 20, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal No. CP-45-CR-0000726-2006
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Syvol Bowen, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas. Specifically, Appellant challenges the propriety of his aggravated-range sentence, which he alleges was based primarily on his silence at sentencing, thus constituting a violation of his right to remain silent pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We hold that a court may not consider a defendant’s silence at sentencing as indicative of his failure to take responsibility for the crimes of which he was convicted. We further hold that silence at sentencing may not be the sole factor in determining a defendant’s lack of remorse. However, we conclude that the trial court relied on numerous legitimate factors in imposing the aggravated-range sentence at issue. Accordingly, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 7/10/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID JOHN LETTAU

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID JOHN LETTAU
No. 1396 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 152 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/10/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 28, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at No. C.A. No. 2635 of 2006
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
David John Lettau appeals the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of Forgery and Theft by Receiving Stolen Property, 18 Pa. C.S. §§ 4101(a)(3), 3925 (respectively). Lettau contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection and denying his motion for mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s repeated reference to Lettau’s pre-arrest silence during direct examination of the investigating officer and later on Lettau’s cross-examination. Lettau contends that the Commonwealth’s references were calculated to suggest that he refused to cooperate with the police investigation of his case and in so doing implicitly admitted his guilt of the crimes charged. Upon review, we find Lettau’s assertions meritorious. Accordingly, we vacate his judgment of sentence.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here