Com. v. Allshouse, S., 1899 WDA 2016

Defendant Shane Allshouse, previously convicted of aggravated assault (2004), was charged under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) (persons not to possess firearms) after admitting a rifle at his home was his and that he possessed and used it.
A Pennsylvania State Trooper investigated a reported suicide at Allshouse’s residence; the rifle used in the suicide was accessible and loaded.
A jury convicted Allshouse of persons not to possess firearms; the trial court sentenced him to 5–10 years’ imprisonment (statutory maximum; within aggravated guidelines range).
Allshouse filed a post-sentence motion and timely appealed, challenging the discretionary aspects of the sentence as excessive and arguing the court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors (age, health, long period without offenses, family support) and improperly relied on the third party’s suicide as an unforeseeable aggravator.
The trial court explained its reasons on the record, citing public-safety concerns, the officer’s evidence that Allshouse kept the gun loaded and accessible, and the fatal outcome; the court reviewed the presentence report and considered mitigating factors but concluded aggravating circumstances justified an aggravated-range, total confinement sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is a substantial question permitting appellate review of the discretionary aspects of sentence	N/A (procedural)	Allshouse preserved claim via post-sentence motion and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)	Requirements satisfied; appellate review allowed
Whether the 5–10 year aggravated-range sentence is clearly unreasonable	N/A	The objectives of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) could be met with mitigated/standard range; mitigating factors (age, disability, long clean period) warranted lower sentence	Sentence not clearly unreasonable; appellate court affirms
Whether the court improperly considered third-party suicide as an aggravating factor beyond defendant’s foreseeability	N/A	Suicide was beyond reasonable control/foreseeability; Basinger supports limiting speculative sentencing	Court distinguished Basinger: here facts of record (loaded, accessible gun, suicide) justified considering the deadly outcome
Whether the sentencing court failed to consider statutory factors and presentence report	N/A	Court failed to give weight to mitigating factors	Court had presentence report, presumption it considered and weighed mitigation; no abuse of discretion

Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to consider § 9721 factors may present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (no requirement that court impose minimum confinement; appellate court may not re-weigh sentencing factors)
Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for sentencing court or re-weigh factors)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing court considered information in presentence report)
Commonwealth v. Basinger, 592 A.2d 1363 (Pa. Super. 1991) (trial court erred by speculating about causes of fatal accident and rejecting defendant’s credibility; but does not preclude maximum sentence when justified on record)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa. Super. 2015) (statutory framework for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (existence of presentence report creates presumption sentencing judge knew relevant defendant information)