Com. v. Austin, H., 3751 EDA 2015

On May 26, 2015, Hassan Austin and a co-defendant forced entry into an apartment, held occupants at gunpoint, threatened to kill a five‑month‑old, and ransacked the home demanding $2,000. Police arrived and arrested both suspects.
Austin pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery, burglary, conspiracy, and person not to possess a firearm.
At sentencing the court applied the Deadly Weapon enhancement; with Austin’s prior record score (4) and the offense gravity score, the standard guideline range was 66–78 months.
The court imposed an aggregate minimum sentence of 72 months (6–15 years concurrent on counts), which fell in the middle of the guideline range.
Austin filed a post‑sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of sentence (excessiveness, failure to consider mitigation, improper reliance on prior arrests, and disparity with co‑defendant); the court denied it and Austin appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the minimum sentence was excessive/discretionary abuse	Austin: sentence (72 months) is excessive	Commonwealth/Trial court: sentence is within standard guideline range and presumptively reasonable	Affirmed — sentence within guideline range; no abuse of discretion
Whether court failed to consider mitigating factors	Austin: court did not adequately weigh mitigation	Trial court: considered PSI, counsel’s arguments, and allocution; mitigation was discussed	Affirmed — record shows mitigation considered; presumption that judge weighed PSI and arguments
Whether court improperly considered prior arrests (not convictions)	Austin: sentencing court may have relied on two prior robbery arrests	Commonwealth: informed court those matters were withdrawn; court aware they were not convictions	Affirmed — no record support for improper consideration; court knew charges were withdrawn
Whether sentence disparity with co‑defendant required explanation	Austin: co‑defendant received lighter sentence without reasons	Commonwealth: co‑defendant sentenced later; matter not preserved below and record lacks co‑defendant materials	Claim waived/unreviewable — not preserved and dependent on record not in certified record

Fowler v. Commonwealth, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard guideline range is presumptively appropriate)
Glass v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sentencing review standard — abuse of discretion required to disturb sentence)
Hallock v. Commonwealth, 603 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 1992) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI and relevant character information)
Smith v. Commonwealth, 863 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme and limits on discretion concerning minimum sentence)
Craft v. Commonwealth, 450 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 1982) (court may consider prior arrests if it recognizes they were not convictions)
Mastromarino v. Commonwealth, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (co‑defendants need not receive identical sentences; disparity requires individualized reasons)
Shugars v. Commonwealth, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (need to preserve discretionary‑sentencing claims at sentencing court)
Petroll v. Commonwealth, 696 A.2d 817 (Pa. Super. 1997) (claims dependent on materials not in certified record are waived)
Rush v. Commonwealth, 959 A.2d 945 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellate court will not rely on materials dehors the certified record)