Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-1915 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH V. MAUREEN DALEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-1915 CRIMINAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., May ,2002 On November 2, 2001, a jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault under Section 2702(a)(1) and 2702(a)(4) of the Crimes Code.~ On November 26, 2001, we sentenced the defendant to pay restitution and to undergo a period of incarceration for not less than eighteen (18) days nor more than twenty-three (23) months. The sentence amounted to a substantial deviation from the sentencing guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. Contending that our sentence was unreasonable, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Reconsider, which we denied. This timely appeal followed. The defendant is a thirty-seven (37) year old Jamaican born registered nurse. She has a long and distinguished career dedicated to helping others. She is a single mother of an intelligent, sensitive, and well-spoken fourteen (14) year old son. She has no prior record. ~ 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1) and (a)(4). Those Sections provide as follows: (a) Offense defined.-A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (4) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; The jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted homicide. 2000-1915 CRIMINAL The victim, Dr. Obiri, is from Nigeria and has a Ph.D in epidemeology. He also has a long and distinguished career dedicated to helping others. In fact, he and the defendant first met in 1993, while they were attending an international pediatric HIV conference in Scotland. They dated off and on for several years. In January 1999, the defendant and her son began living with Dr. Obiri in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding his many accomplishments, Dr. Obiri can be a very controlling, and sometimes violent, man. From the time they began living together until the incident giving rise to these charges, he had subjected the defendant to a pattern of emotional, psychological, and at times, physical abuse.2 Dr. Obiri's children, his ex-wife, the defendant's son, and Dr. Obiri himself, provided testimony regarding the extent and nature of that abuse. This tragic incident occurred on August 23, 2001. It resulted from a dispute that began on August 19 when Dr. Obiri discovered that someone had broken into his briefcase. The defendant admitted to breaking the lock and searching the briefcase.3 While she replaced the briefcase, buying him a new one on August 21, the doctor obsessed over personal items he felt were missing. He would not let the matter rest. On August 22, at about 9:30 p.m., he made the defendant accompany him through every room of the house, requiring her to pull out her personal belongings so that he could examine them in an effort to find his "missing property". At the conclusion of this We note that on one occasion Dr. Obiri broke the defendant's nose. She was trying to confirm a suspicion that Dr. Obiri had married on a recent trip to Nigeria. 2000-1915 CRIMINAL demeaning event, he discovered two kitchen knives in the defendant's handbag. When he asked why she had them, she replied that they were for her protection.4 The defendant spent the night in her son's bedroom with the door locked.5 Not willing to let the briefcase incident go, Dr. Obiri went to talk to the defendant the next morning. As he approached her bedroom, he discovered the locked door. Since the defendant would not answer, he went to get a tool to open the door. He used the tool on the door and eventually it opened.6 He entered the room and a struggle occurred in which both Dr. Obiri and the defendant received stab wounds. The defendant's wounds were superficial, but Dr. Obiri's required hospitalization. Dr. Obiri left the home and was driven to the hospital by a neighbor. The defendant called the police. She was cooperative with the police at all times. While she did not testify, the jury heard her version of events by way of a recorded statement she gave to the police shortly after the incident. Her anguish and remorse over the incident were apparent. Additionally, her concern for Dr. Obiri was both genuine and moving. With the above background in mind, we set out to fashion an appropriate sentence. In addition to having listened to four days of testimony, we had the benefit of a presentence investigation report. We had also received dozens of letters in support of the defendant, as well as a victim impact statement from Dr. Obiri. We were mindful of the serious nature of the charges and were aware that the sentencing guidelines called for substantial incarceration, even in the mitigated range and even when viewed most The defendant was aware that Dr. Obiri kept a firearm in the home. Her son was visiting relatives. It is unclear whether the defendant opened the door or whether the doctor unlocked it. 2000-1915 CRIMINAL favorably to the defendant.? Our initial reaction was that additional incarceration would not be appropriate.8 At the time of sentence, we heard from the defendant's attorney, from the defendant, and from some character witnesses called on the defendant's behalf. We also heard from the Commonwealth and from Dr. Obiri. Nothing we heard on the morning of sentence changed our initial reaction. To the contrary, it confirmed our opinion that no additional incarceration should be imposed. As required, we articulated the reasons for our substantial departure from the sentencing guidelines as follows: Let me start by saying that this is a very difficult case, as I'm sure all counsel and everybody in this courtroom would agree .... ! have got two very well educated people who have both been a credit to our community and a credit to their respective professions. What ! have before me, nonetheless, is a very serious crime. As one letter points out, it shows the capacity we all have to do serious harm to each other, even - and sometimes especially - the ones we love. Even someone as Ms. Daley who has dedicated her life to helping others in need and to help in the healing profession, was capable of coming within an inch, within millimeters of killing her, at-the-time, life partner. It is a very serious crime. There is no doubt about that. And on paper, on paper, if! look at the guidelines on paper, a very serious sentence is called for. A state sentence in the very high range is called for on this crime. I, however, am not sentencing on paper. ! am sentencing human beings, and ! will depart from the guidelines. And ! will do so for several reasons, and ! will articulate the reasons why ! am going to depart because ! have to do that. And let me start by saying that ! have considered the guidelines both as you've outlined in your letter, Mr. Sodus... assuming that serious bodily injury was caused. And as outlined in your letter or your statement this morning, Mr. Matangos, assuming that it's the other way. And it wouldn't make a difference in the sentence ! am about to impose, because the sentence that ! impose is based upon the individual, and the facts that come before me. And that is the reason ! am going to depart from the guidelines, and there are a number of other reasons. 7 We considered the guideline ranges both as advocated by the Commonwealth and by the defense. In either event, our sentence would have been the same. 8 The defendant had spent eighteen (18) days in jail before posting bail. 2000-1915 CRIMINAL And I will start by saying that first of all, Ms. Daley was not the initial aggressor in this thing. Although she clearly overreacted to the danger or perceived danger that was involved in the situation. This was a domestic dispute. That doesn't excuse it. That doesn't make it any less serious a crime. And if, God forbid, the good doctor had died from these wounds, this would be a whole different ball game than ! am faced with here today. Secondly, Ms. Daley, you have been an exemplary citizen for all of your 37 years. That has to count for something. Your value to the community is apparent in the numerous letters ! have received on your behalf. Thirdly, and ! am convinced of this - and Dr. Obiri, you may not be convinced of this, but ! am, sir - that Ms. Daley is genuinely, deeply and sincerely remorseful for her actions. Next, ! will consider, and ! have considered the fact that she has a young son, who she has been raising as a single parent, who needs her very much. Next, she was cooperative throughout the entire process. Now, she didn't testify at trial. I, along with the jury, heard a statement made within hours after this incident. Her distraught was genuine. Her willingness to cooperate was genuine. Next, she is not a danger to the community. Rehabilitation is not an issue here. ! don't doubt that Ms. Daley will never offend again. Quite the contrary, you are quite an asset to the community, and a genuine asset to the community. Next, ! would say that a lengthy period of incarceration would serve no useful purpose at all. And ! have considered the retribution... But a lengthy period of incarceration would not serve any purpose. And finally, ! read the letters. ! heard the evidence. And ! am personally convinced, and it is my job and my call, ! am personally convinced that the sentence ! am about to impose is the correct sentence under the facts and the evidence in this case. Sentencing Colloquy, pp. 27 - 30. The Commonwealth filed a motion asking us to reconsider our sentence. The parties briefed and argued their respective positions. We carefully reconsidered our sentence. After reviewing the facts, re-examining the law, and re-weighing the options 2000-1915 CRIMINAL and standards set forth in Sections 9721(a) and (b) of the Sentencing Code,9 we were convinced that our original sentence was appropriate. Therefore, we denied the motion. DATE: Edward E. Guido, J. Daniel Sodus, Esquire 1 Courthouse Square 2nd Floor Carlisle, Pa. 17013 For the Commonwealth George H. Matangos, Esquire 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pa. 17043-0222 9 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(a), (b).