Commonwealth v. Slaughter

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Slaughter

583 A.2d 427, 525 Pa. 568, 1990 Pa. LEXIS 206

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 20, 1990

DocketNo. 87 Western District Appeal Docket 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 583 A.2d 427 (Commonwealth v. Slaughter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Slaughter, 583 A.2d 427, 525 Pa. 568, 1990 Pa. LEXIS 206 (Pa. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PAPADAKOS, Justice.

Anthony Slaughter (Appellant) was charged with an attempt “to commit the crime of theft of a Volvo automobile,” a felony of the third degree. He was tried without a jury and was found guilty. On direct appeal, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court reversed and set aside the judgment of sentence for attempted theft of an automobile and remanded for the imposition of sentence for the crime of attempted theft of the contents of the involved vehicle 390 Pa.Super. 657, 561 A.2d 822. Appellant was never charged with this crime and the Commonwealth concedes that to sentence him for such a crime clearly violates the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. We agree.

The Superior Court erred in remanding this matter for imposition of a sentence for a crime for which Appellant was neither charged nor convicted because an appellate court may not “mold” a criminal verdict as was done here. In Commonwealth v. Wagner, 486 Pa. 548, 406 A.2d 1026 (1979), our Court specifically rejected the notion that an appellate court may refashion the conviction of a jury into one based on a lesser-included offense. That precedent applies equally here.

Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court must be reversed and the Appellant discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PAPADAKOS, Justice.

Anthony Slaughter (Appellant) was charged with an attempt “to commit the crime of theft of a Volvo automobile,” a felony of the third degree. He was tried without a jury and was found guilty. On direct appeal, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court reversed and set aside the judgment of sentence for attempted theft of an automobile and remanded for the imposition of sentence for the crime of attempted theft of the contents of the involved vehicle 390 Pa.Super. 657, 561 A.2d 822. Appellant was never charged with this crime and the Commonwealth concedes that to sentence him for such a crime clearly violates the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. We agree.

The Superior Court erred in remanding this matter for imposition of a sentence for a crime for which Appellant was neither charged nor convicted because an appellate court may not “mold” a criminal verdict as was done here. In Commonwealth v. Wagner, 486 Pa. 548, 406 A.2d 1026 (1979), our Court specifically rejected the notion that an appellate court may refashion the conviction of a jury into one based on a lesser-included offense. That precedent applies equally here.

Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court must be reversed and the Appellant discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 A.2d 427, 525 Pa. 568, 1990 Pa. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-slaughter-pa-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack