Com. v. Badell, M., 3522 EDA 2016

Defendant Miguel Alejandro Badell pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault (first-degree felony) for choking and other abuse of his former girlfriend; other charges were withdrawn.
Victim reported repeated physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, including threats with a knife and gun, choking until unconsciousness, and a 36-page victim impact statement at sentencing.
Badell had two prior domestic-violence-related convictions in California and served significant prison time; PSI and guideline ranges were prepared (standard range 60–72 months; county recommended 7–15 years aggravated range).
On October 6, 2016 the trial court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 10–20 years, above the aggravated guidelines range.
Badell filed a post-sentence motion arguing the sentence was excessive and that the court failed to consider mitigating factors; the motion was denied and he appealed the discretionary aspects of sentence.

Issue	Badell's Argument	Trial Court/Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether sentence above aggravated guidelines lacked adequate reasons	Court didn't provide sufficient on-the-record reasons and focused only on prior record and victim impact	Court considered PSI, guideline ranges, victim testimony, prior convictions, and protection/rehabilitation concerns	No relief; court adequately explained reasons for upward departure
Whether court failed to consider defendant's individual characteristics/mitigating factors	Court ignored Badell's remorse, acceptance of responsibility, mental-health and substance treatment needs	Badell presented no evidence of mental-health/substance issues at sentencing; PSI reflected his denials; court heard allocution	No relief; court considered individual characteristics and allocution; claim partly waived re: evaluations
Whether sentencing judge was biased in favor of DV victims	Judge showed predisposition/sympathy toward victims, leading to bias against defendant	Issues not raised at sentencing or in post-sentence motion (waived)	Waived; no relief
Whether court double-counted prior convictions	Reliance on prior record improperly double-counted	Not raised at sentencing or in post-sentence motion (waived)	Waived; no relief

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (framework for discretionary sentencing review and substantial-question inquiry)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (definition and appellate review of "unreasonable" sentence outside guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mitigating-factor claims generally do not present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Miklos, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2017) (preservation requirement for discretionary sentencing claims)