## Facts

- On September 18, 1985, Barbara Cavaliere (manager) and Elizabeth DeJesse (employee) were preparing to open the Financial Exchange Company located inside an ACME supermarket in Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania.
- A man knocked at the office door and claimed he had a package from Cavaliere’s superior, displaying an identification card and a manila envelope resembling envelopes routinely received by the business.
- As Cavaliere began to open the door, she saw the man remove a revolver from the envelope; Cavaliere and DeJesse tried to close the door, but he forced his way in.
- Inside the office, the man pointed the gun at both women and threatened serious bodily injury if they did not comply.
- The man forced Cavaliere to open the safe and took approximately $22,000 in cash and food stamps belonging to the employer.
- The defendant was arrested and identified by the victims.
- After trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, the defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery (one per employee threatened) and one count of “former convict not to own firearm,” among other offenses, and received consecutive sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether two robbery convictions may be imposed when, during a single theft from one business, the defendant threatens two employees with serious bodily injury.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support one of the robbery counts.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the “former convict not to own firearm” conviction.
4. Whether identification evidence should have been suppressed as impermissibly suggestive, and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary identification instruction.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The court held that the defendant committed two robberies because he threatened two distinct individuals with serious bodily injury during the theft.
- The court rejected sufficiency challenges to the robbery and firearm convictions.
- The court held the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive and did not warrant suppression.
- The court found no ineffective assistance because the omitted challenges lacked merit and the absence of a special cautionary identification instruction did not prejudice the defense.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s robbery statute, the unit of prosecution is tied to the number of persons placed in fear of, or threatened with, serious bodily injury during the course of a theft; a single taking of property can support multiple robbery convictions when multiple victims are threatened.
- Robbery is oriented toward protecting persons from danger, not merely protecting property interests; punishment may reflect the number of individuals subjected to the threatened harm.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing that the underlying claim has arguable merit, counsel lacked a reasonable basis, and prejudice resulted; counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim.
- Identification evidence is not subject to suppression absent procedures so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification; reliability may be supported by the witnesses’ opportunity to observe the perpetrator during the crime.

## Conclusion

The court upheld separate robbery convictions for each employee threatened during a single business theft and affirmed consecutive sentencing, concluding the evidence supported the robbery and firearm convictions and that neither the identification challenges nor related ineffectiveness claims warranted relief.


Commonwealth v. Rozplochi, 385 Pa. Super. 357 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)