Com. v. Alog, C.
2909 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Charlie Alog pled guilty to rape by forcible compulsion (F1), involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (F1), aggravated indecent assault (F2), and flight to avoid apprehension (F3).
- Victim was Alog’s niece who had severe developmental delays (functioning at ~8-year-old level); assault occurred in the victim’s uncle’s home.
- After the offense, Alog fled to the Philippines and was later returned to the U.S. by marshals; he waived preliminary hearings and entered a guilty plea.
- At sentencing the court ordered pre-sentence, mental-health, and SOAB evaluations (SOAB found Alog not an SVP) and heard victim-impact and family testimony.
- Court imposed concurrent terms of 7.5–15 years (rape), 7.5–15 years (IDSI), 5–10 years (aggravated indecent assault), and a consecutive 1–3 years (flight) for an aggregate of 8.5–18 years; the rape sentence was 12 months above the aggravated guideline range.
- Alog filed post-sentence motions and appealed, arguing the court failed to state contemporaneous reasons for deviating above the guidelines and that the aggregate sentence was unreasonable given his age, lack of prior record, and guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by imposing an above-guidelines sentence without contemporaneous reasons | Alog: court announced sentence without explaining or acknowledging deviation from guideline range, violating 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) | Trial court: record shows it reviewed PSI, mental-health and SOAB reports, heard testimony, was aware of guidelines, and rationally deviated | Affirmed — court’s on-the-record consideration of reports, testimony, and guidelines sufficed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive | Alog: 62-year-old first-time offender, guilty plea/waiver, low recidivism risk — sentence effectively a life term and excessive | Trial court: weighed rehabilitative needs and mitigating factors against gravity, victim impact, flight, and community protection; sentences within statutory maximums | Affirmed — sentencing court considered required factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and acceptance of responsibility | Alog: court ignored mitigating factors like plea/waiver and no prior record | Trial court: did consider those factors but gave greater weight to severity, victim vulnerability, and public protection | Affirmed — factors were considered and reasonably weighed |
| Whether procedural sentencing requirements (contemporaneous statement) mandate vacatur | Alog: statutory requirement entitles him to vacatur absent adequate on-the-record reasons | Trial court: contemporaneous statement satisfied by express reliance on PSI, evaluations, testimony, and demonstrable awareness of guidelines | Affirmed — statement of reasons on record was adequate; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing review standards and Rule 2119(f) requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (above-guidelines sentence without adequate basis raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Holiday, 954 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. 2008) (same — need for reasons when departing from guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia-Rivera, 983 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court must demonstrate awareness of guidelines and state factual basis when deviating)
- Commonwealth v. Dutter, 617 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1992) (court may deviate from guidelines but must place reasons on record)
- Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, 923 A.2d 1111 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing guidelines advisory)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (guidelines inform decision; departure permissible for protection-of-public and gravity-of-offense reasons)
- Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 1999) (what constitutes an adequate contemporaneous statement)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (reliance on presentence report can satisfy § 9721(b) reasons requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. Super. 1988) (presumption judge considered PSI when present)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court must have sufficient information to justify sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Begley, 780 A.2d 605 (Pa. 2001) (standards for sentencing consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 534 A.2d 836 (Pa. Super. 1987) (deference afforded sentencing court)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (manifest-abuse-of-discretion standard)