Com. v. Agugliaro, J., 342 A.3d 105

Jeffrey Agugliaro was convicted by a Wyoming County jury of first-degree burglary (of a building adapted for overnight accommodation), criminal trespass, and attempted theft.
The property in question was a home not currently inhabited but furnished, containing personal effects, and periodically visited by its owner, Darlene Marshall, who intended to eventually return.
Evidence tied Agugliaro to the crime scene: his footprints matched those found in the basement near copper pipes positioned for removal, and jewelry belonging to the homeowner was found in a vehicle associated with his companion.
The original sentence included $25,609.60 restitution, which after a bifurcated sentencing process was amended to $7,000.00.
On appeal, Agugliaro challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree burglary, an alleged Brady violation for nondisclosure of evidence, and the imposition of an aggravated range sentence.
The court found the appeal was timely filed due to the bifurcated nature of the sentencing proceedings regarding restitution.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree burglary	The house was not adapted for overnight accommodation and was uninhabitable.	The home was furnished, previously inhabited, and owner intended to return.	Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed.
Alleged Brady violation (discovery disclosure)	Prosecution withheld exculpatory photographs and search inventories.	No evidence such evidence existed; disclosed what was relevant and available.	No Brady violation; conviction affirmed.
Aggravated range sentencing discretion	Sentence lacked sufficient reasoning and ignored mitigating factors.	Sentencing court relied on clear reasons: no remorse, flight, seriousness.	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed.
Timeliness of appeal	Appeal filed after restitution order, not original sentence.	Argued appeal was untimely; should be from denial of post-sentence motion.	Appeal timely due to bifurcated sentencing (Cochran/Rapp).

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (established duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Commonwealth v. Nixon, 801 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Super. 2002) (adaptation for overnight accommodation is about the building's nature and intended use, not current habitation)
Commonwealth v. Graham, 9 A.3d 196 (Pa. 2010) (distinguished structures under construction as not adapted for overnight accommodation)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing court reviews PSI and considers mitigating factors)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing guidelines are advisory; must state reasons for deviation)