Commonwealth v. Flor

606 Pa. 384 (Pa. 2010) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 22, 2010

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviews Robert Anthony Flor’s direct appeal from a death sentence imposed for the first-degree murder of a police officer in a hospital emergency room. The court affirms the death sentence after addressing, among other issues, the sufficiency of the evidence, competency to stand trial, and denial of a continuance, but vacates the sentences for ten counts of recklessly endangering another person and remands for resentencing on those counts.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Justice McCaffery; Chief Justice Castille; Justice Saylor; Justice Eakin; Justice Baer; Justice Todd
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Decision date
July 22, 2010
Procedural posture
Direct appeal from a judgment of sentence imposing death for first-degree murder and consecutive imprisonment for other offenses, including ten counts of recklessly endangering another person.
Standard of review
Capital sentences are automatically reviewed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3); the Court independently reviews the sufficiency of evidence supporting a first-degree murder conviction. Competency determinations and evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion or prejudice, recusal decisions for abuse of discretion, and preserved legal challenges under the applicable de novo or statutory standard. Unpreserved issues are waived under Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Robert Anthony Flor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Disposition
vacated

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewcruel and unusual punishment

Practice areas

criminal lawcapital punishmentcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court correctly found Flor competent to stand trial.
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance for further neuropsychological testing.
  3. Whether evidence concerning the circumstances of Flor's prior violent felony convictions was admissible during the capital penalty phase.
  4. Whether the statutory aggravating circumstances under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(1), (d)(6), (d)(7), and (d)(9) were unconstitutional as applied or otherwise unsupported.
  5. Whether the jury's finding of no mitigating circumstances and imposition of death violated the law or constitutional protections.
  6. Whether the death sentence resulted from passion, prejudice, or another arbitrary factor.
  7. Whether the trial judge should have recused himself from ruling on post-sentence motions.
  8. Whether the sentences imposed for ten REAP convictions exceeded the statutory maximum.
  9. Whether lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Holdings

  1. The trial court properly found Flor competent because the evidence showed that he understood the proceedings and had the ability to consult with counsel and participate in his defense, even though he chose not to cooperate.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance for additional neuropsychological testing.
  3. During a capital penalty phase, the Commonwealth may present evidence concerning the circumstances and underlying facts of prior violent felony convictions so the jury can assess the convictions' weight and the defendant's character.
  4. Flor waived his challenges to the jury instructions concerning several aggravating circumstances and waived other trial-error claims by failing to object in the trial court.
  5. The jury was not required to find a mitigating circumstance merely because the defense presented evidence supporting it or the Commonwealth did not offer rebuttal evidence.
  6. The aggregate REAP sentence was illegal because the trial court imposed a maximum term exceeding the statutory maximum for second-degree misdemeanor REAP.
  7. The death sentence was not the product of passion, prejudice, or another arbitrary factor, and the evidence supported the four aggravating circumstances found by the jury.

Key quotations

The issue in a competency determination is whether the defendant is able to cooperate with counsel, not whether he is actually cooperating. (617)
Thus, the jury not only should, but indeed must know more than the mere fact of conviction if it is to carry out its sentencing role properly. (623)
A capital jury is not required to find a mitigating factor presented by a defendant, even if the Commonwealth fails to present evidence rebutting the existence of that factor. (626)
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentence of death, and we remand for re-sentencing on the ten counts of REAP. (643)

Factual background

After police stopped Flor's vehicle while he was assaulting his girlfriend, officers arrested him and transported him to a hospital for blood and urine testing. While an officer was re-handcuffing Flor in a hospital lavatory, Flor seized the officer's firearm and shot two officers and an emergency medical technician. Flor then fired two close-range shots into Officer Gregg's head, killing him, and attempted to shoot the other officer again after returning to him. Flor was apprehended in the hospital garage and made threatening statements during his medical treatment, including statements that the officers deserved what they received.

Procedural history

Flor was charged with first-degree murder and numerous related offenses after shooting three people in a hospital emergency room, killing Officer Brian Gregg. He pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and entered nolo contendere pleas to thirty other counts. Following a capital penalty-phase hearing, the jury found four aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances and returned a death sentence. The trial court also imposed an aggregate sentence of sixty-five to 130 years for the noncapital offenses and denied post-sentence motions. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the death sentence but vacated the sentences imposed for the ten REAP counts and remanded for resentencing.

Remand instructions

Affirm the judgment of sentence of death. Vacate the sentences imposed for the ten REAP counts and remand to the trial court for resentencing on those counts.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…