Judge's Rejection of Negotiated Sentence Not Grounds for Recusal, Court Finds
A three-judge Superior Court panel ruled that Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Barbara McDermott was not required to recuse from a case after she rejected a negotiated sentencing offer.
April 11, 2019 at 12:12 PM
5 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a judge's decision to reject a negotiated sentence is not in and of itself grounds to seek recusal.
In a published April 8 opinion in Commonwealth v. Blount, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court ruled that Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Barbara McDermott was not required to recuse from defendant John Blount's case after she rejected a negotiated sentencing offer.
“We hold that merely because the district attorney and defense counsel negotiate a stipulated sentence, the sentencing judge is not bound thereby and has the ultimate independent responsibility to impose a sentence consistent with the Sentencing Code,” Judge Correale Stevens wrote for the panel. “The fact Judge McDermott ultimately rejected the parties' negotiated sentence does not require the conclusion that she was biased, prejudiced, or unfair such that she should have recused herself from this matter.”
Stevens was joined by Judges Judith Ference Olson and Alice Beck Dubow.
Blount had argued that McDermott had stated in other cases that she would recuse herself if she rejected a negotiated sentence but failed to follow her own rule in his case.
The panel, however, found that Blount failed to timely ask for McDermott's recusal when she first indicated that she had no obligation to accept the negotiated sentence.
The panel also agreed with McDermott's position that rejecting a negotiated sentence is distinguishable from rejecting a plea agreement.
McDermott wrote in her opinion that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 1969 ruling in Commonwealth v. Evans, which Blount relied on in pushing for her recusal, was “irrelevant, as the instant appellant was not negotiating his own guilty plea; he was rightfully convicted of his crimes in 1990.”
Evans had summarized the ABA Minimum Standards for guilty pleas in place at the time, suggesting that a trial judge who rejected a negotiated plea offer should then seek to have the case transferred to another judge.
“At no point during the instant proceedings was [Judge McDermott] required to make a decision that would affect the guilt or innocence of [appellant],” McDermott wrote in her opinion.
McDermott also wrote that Blount “fails to establish that [Judge McDermott] was incapable of honorably, fairly, and competently presiding over the instant matter.”
“He has presented no evidence of bias, prejudice, or unfairness necessary to show that [Judge McDermott's] recusal was warranted,” McDermott wrote. “[Appellant] fails to meet his burden.[Appellant's] position reveals his naked attempt to shop for a favorable judge in this jurisdiction.”
“Applying the appropriate standard, we specifically conclude appellant has not produced any evidence of bias, prejudice, or unfairness that raises a substantial doubt as to Judge McDermott's ability to preside over appellant's sentencing proceedings impartially,” Stevens said. “Moreover, we note it is well-settled that the Sentencing Code places an independent obligation upon a judge to impose a sentence, which the judge finds appropriate upon consideration of the factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9721(b).3.”
Blount was convicted in 1990 of shooting and killing two men when he was 17 years old and was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of death, according to the opinion.
He was resentenced in 2018 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark rulings in Miller v. Alabama from 2012, which imposed a ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, and Montgomery v. Louisiana from 2016, which made Miller retroactive.
McDermott imposed a new sentence of 35 years to life imprisonment for each count of first-degree murder, to run concurrently.
In addition to his recusal argument, Blount argued on appeal that McDermott imposed an excessive minimum sentence that failed to consider his “'rehabilitation, growth, and remorse,'” as well as the protection of the public.
But Stevens said McDermott “properly weighed and considered the protection of the public, the gravity of appellant's offense as it relates to the impact on the lives of the victims' families and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of appellant.”
The Superior Court also rejected Blount's argument that a maximum sentence of life is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders and that it afforded him no meaningful opportunity for release.
“Here, the lower court sentenced appellant to an aggregate minimum term of 35 years' imprisonment,” Stevens said. “Appellant has been incarcerated for his crime since the time of his arrest when he was 17 years old. Upon resentencing, the trial court gave appellant credit for all time served from the date of his arrest. Thus, appellant will be eligible for parole when he is 52 years old. Accordingly, appellant's claim that his sentence offers him no meaningful opportunity for parole is without merit.”
Blount's attorney, Bradley Bridge of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, said, “It's troubling that a judge would announce that she would recuse herself if she didn't accept the negotiated sentence and that she didn't apply her own rule to this case. It's more troubling that the Superior Court wasn't troubled by such an inconsistent application of the recusal rule.”
Bridge said he plans to seek state Supreme Court review.
A spokesman for the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office could not be reached for comment.
(Copies of the 19-page opinion in Commonwealth v. Blount, PICS No. 19-0444, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllStevens & Lee Hires Ex-Middle District of Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney as White-Collar Co-Chair
3 minute readJudge Tanks Prevailing Pittsburgh Attorneys' $2.45M Fee Request to $250K
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250