Com. v. Adda, S.
399 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Saad Adda pled guilty to three counts of bank robbery and conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to deliver after a month-long series of robberies committed while addicted to heroin.
- Authorities arrested Adda after the third robbery; he admitted guilt and sought rehabilitation as part of sentencing mitigation.
- The trial court ordered and reviewed a pre-sentence investigation (PSI), which recommended an aggregate sentence of 4½ to 9 years' imprisonment.
- At sentencing Adda argued for an extensive rehabilitation component; the court imposed the PSI-recommended aggregate 4½ to 9 year term.
- Adda filed post-sentence motions challenging the sentence as excessive for failing to account for his rehabilitative needs; those motions were denied and he timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider rehabilitative needs, resulting in an excessive sentence | Adda argued the sentence was punitive, inconsistent with rehabilitative needs and improperly minimized mitigating factors (addiction, admission of guilt) | Commonwealth argued the court considered the PSI and sentencing factors and acted within its discretion | Court affirmed: no substantial question; presumes trial court considered PSI and relevant factors; discretionary sentence not abused |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discretionary-sentencing challenges treated as petitions for permission to appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (what constitutes a substantial question on sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2013) (generic excessive-sentence claims and failure-to-consider arguments typically do not present substantial questions)
- Commonwealth v. Hallock, 603 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 1992) (presumption that a sentencing court reviewing a PSI considered relevant information)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishing claims that court failed to consider statutory factors from broader assertions about facts of record)