Case Title: Com. v. Simmons

Citation: 335 Pa. Super. 57, 483 A.2d 953

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1984-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
335 Pa. Superior Ct. 57 (1984) 483 A.2d 953 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Mark SIMMONS, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted February 2, 1984. Filed November 2, 1984. *59 Cheryl Anne Furey, Philadelphia, for appellant. Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee. Before SPAETH, President Judge, and BECK and HOFFMAN, JJ. SPAETH, President Judge: This is an appeal from judgment of sentence for robbery, criminal conspiracy, and theft. Appellant argues that the trial judge should have recused himself.[1] We agree, and therefore vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for new trial.[2] On January 19, 1981, three men robbed a 78 year-old man at knifepoint, taking his money and car. Appellant and another man were caught after a police chase and were charged with the robbery. Appellant's counsel filed a petition for a mental examination to determine appellant's competency to stand trial. The petition was granted, and on November 24, 1981, appellant was found incompetent to stand trial. The psychiatric report stated: "The defendant currently appears to have a major mental illness which would appear to render him unable to cooperate with counsel in his own defense. It is felt that he is not capable of standing trial at the present time. It is recommended that he be committed for a period of 30 days to the Hahnemann Psychiatric Facility at the Philadelphia prisons for further *60 evaluation and treatment." The trial court ordered appellant committed to the Forensic Unit of the Philadelphia Detention Center for a period not to exceed sixty days. On January 5, 1982, appellant was again examined. The psychiatric report, dated January 25, 1982, stated that appellant's condition was "consistent with the diagnosis of Schizophrenia-Paranoid Type. . . ." The report further stated that appellant was "able to proceed to trial . . . under the condition that he had received medication and inpatient treatment at that time," and that his paranoia was in remission but he would "need close follow-up . . . and continued monitoring." On February 18, 1982, appellant was found competent to stand trial. On March 2, 1982, appellant appeared before the trial court to plead guilty. The court conducted an on-the-record colloquy during which appellant admitted his guilt: Later in the colloquy the court asked: After appellant had consulted with his attorney, the Commonwealth presented the facts of the case. The court again questioned appellant: The court then heard and denied a suppression motion. A jury was selected and dismissed until the next day. However, on the next day, when court resumed, defense counsel informed the court that "both [appellant and his mother] are insisting that he go to trial non-jury," adding, "Now, I *62 don't believe that [appellant] is competent to stand trial." N.T. 3/3/82 at 3. Counsel requested another psychiatric evaluation. The court granted the request. Appellant was examined, and the psychiatrist testified that in his opinion appellant had "a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings" and "[p]sychologically [he] saw no reason why [appellant] could not proceed to trial. . . ." N.T. 3/3/82 at 22, 23. The court then asked counsel their positions. The assistant district attorney responded that he had no objection to appellant waiving a jury and proceeding to trial before the court "so long as several things were clear" to appellant: "Number one, that [appellant] is in the career criminal program and the Court would know, of course, that he has a record of at least two felonies. The second thing is that Your Honor heard him attempt to tender a guilty plea yesterday and there is a possibility that might affect Your Honor." N.T. 3/3/82 at 25. Defense counsel then asked the trial judge to recuse himself, but the judge refused: We hold that the trial judge should have recused himself. Appellant's right to be tried before an impartial judge should not have been subordinated to the administrative matter of the availability of another judge assigned to a particular program. In Commonwealth v. Goodman, 454 Pa. 358, 362, 311 A.2d 652, 654 (1973), the Court held: "[A] judge should honor a request for recusation where prejudicial information is received in a pre-trial proceeding that *63 would be otherwise inadmissible during the trial of the cause." In Commonwealth v. Conti, 236 Pa.Super. 488, 345 A.2d 238 (1975), this court held that a new trial was required where in a non-jury trial the trial judge was informed through testimony that the defendant had pleaded guilty at his preliminary hearing. And in Commonwealth v. Walls, 261 Pa.Super. 321, 325 n. 2, 396 A.2d 419, 421 n. 2 (1978), we stated: "In a case where the judge hears highly prejudicial testimony, such as a withdrawn guilty plea, he should recuse himself from sitting as factfinder. . . ." See also, Commonwealth v. Badger, 482 Pa. 240, 393 A.2d 642 (1978) (trial counsel held ineffective for failing to request recusal in non-jury trial where judge had heard withdrawn guilty plea). The Commonwealth, citing Commonwealth v. Casella, 312 Pa.Super. 375, 458 A.2d 1007 (1983), argues that the trial judge, unlike a jury, was capable of disregarding prejudicial matters. Casella, however, was an unusual case and must be limited to its facts. The defendant there was charged with burglary, criminal trespass and simple assault. The testimony at the trial was that the defendant The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal trespass and not guilty to burglary, but then changed his plea to not guilty on both charges, and proceeded to a non-jury trial before the judge who had heard his withdrawn guilty plea. The judge found him guilty and imposed two sentences: one for criminal trespass and one for burglary. On appeal, the defendant argued that the offenses merged and that the judge should not have imposed two sentences. We agreed, holding that there had been only one unlawful entry, and *64 we therefore vacated the sentence for criminal trespass. The defendant also argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to ask the trial judge to recuse himself. We held that in the particular circumstances the judge was not required to recuse himself, explaining that The situation in this case is entirely different. Here the guilty plea was an unambiguous event. There could be no doubt about the legal significance of the acts charged, and there was no question that appellant had admitted his guilt to the trial judge. Thus the judge knew things he could not possibly put out of his mind. In these circumstances the judge's partiality could reasonably be questioned. Indeed, at one point, before he deferred to administrative considerations, the trial judge recognized this fact, and cautioned defense counsel: "I'll tell you. I don't think it is a very good idea. I heard him practically plead guilty yesterday." N.T. 3/3/82 at 10. The Commonwealth argues that "appellant must point to some specific acts of bias or prejudice." Brief for Commonwealth at 5. However, such a showing is unnecessary where the trial judge has heard a guilty plea. In Commonwealth v. Goodman, supra, the Court held: Finally, the Commonwealth argues that appellant waived his right to be tried before another, impartial, judge. In some circumstances a party may waive his right to have a judge recuse himself, Commonwealth v. Corbin, 447 Pa. 463, 291 A.2d 307 (1972); Commonwealth v. Stanton, 294 Pa.Super. 516, 521 n. 6, 440 A.2d 585, 588 n. 6 (1982), but here there was no waiver. Defense counsel twice moved for recusal. N.T. 3/3/82 at 25-26, 50. Each time the trial judge refused to recuse himself, stating that no other judge in the career criminal program was available to hear the case. Immediately after his first refusal to recuse himself, the trial judge made the following statement to appellant: The trial judge then stated that he wished appellant and his mother to know that if appellant waived a jury, "the sentence is not going to be any different. I'm not going to hold it against him because he requested a jury trial." N.T. 3/3/82 at 29. When defense counsel then indicated that he understood from appellant's mother that appellant "wants to go non-jury", id., the trial judge, after the mother had been sworn, asked the mother whether she knew why appellant "wishe[d] to waive a jury trial before me as the Judge," to which the mother replied, "I don't know, Your Honor". N.T. 7/3/82 at 31. The judge then questioned appellant: On this record we cannot find that appellant waived his right to be tried before another, impartial, judge. Appellant was presented with an improperly restricted choice ("Your choice [is] in trying the case before me". "Which would you rather have, a judge hear the case, which would be me, or a jury. . . .?") He was never given the choice of having a judge whose impartiality could not reasonably be questioned hear the case. It was especially important to make sure that appellant understood that he had a right to a different judge, given the psychiatric evaluations of appellant's mental condition. *68 When defense counsel argued in support of appellant's post-trial motions that the trial judge should have recused himself, the judge responded: We do not find this statement by the trial judge persuasive. It acknowledges that appellant's counsel was not engaged in a "ploy", and as already discussed, the administrative *69 availability or not of "other Judges in the career criminal program" was not a sufficient reason for the judge to refuse to recuse himself. The judgment of sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial before a different judge. [1] The Commonwealth argues that at the post-verdict motions hearing defense counsel abandoned this argument. On the contrary, counsel pressed the argument with vigor, N.T. 6/15/82 at 2-16, and the trial court responded, both at the hearing, id., and in its opinion, slip op. at 9-20. [2] We need not address appellant's other arguments, which are: 1) that the court erred in permitting hearsay testimony at the sentencing hearing; 2) that the court erred in refusing to allow a psychiatric examination to determine appellant's sanity at the time of the incident; and 3) several instances of alleged ineffectiveness of counsel.