Com. v. Bankes, A.
2022 Pa. Super. 212
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2022Background
- From July 2018 to June 2020 Appellant Austin Bankes repeatedly forced a child (beginning at age 12) to engage in oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse; the victim reported multiple separate sex acts.
- Bankes was charged with 65 counts; he pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child, three counts of rape by forcible compulsion, and two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI); remaining counts were nolle prossed.
- At sentencing (Mar. 16, 2022) Bankes stipulated to Sexual Violent Predator classification; the trial court had a presentence investigation report (PSI) and SOAB evaluation.
- The court imposed consecutive standard-range sentences (20–40 years for rape of a child; five consecutive 6–20 year terms), for an aggregate 50–140 years.
- On appeal Bankes argued the sentence was a de facto life term, that the court failed to consider his mental-health and rehabilitation needs, and that the court disregarded his remorse/admission of guilt.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found the sentences were standard-range, the court had considered statutory factors (and the PSI), consecutive terms were permissible given separate violent acts, and issues about expert testimony or PSI completeness were waived when raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Bankes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive, top-of-range sentences amounted to a de facto life sentence | Court properly exercised discretion; consecutive standard-range sentences are permitted for multiple distinct violent acts and the PSI/impact supported aggregate sentence | Consecutive maximum-range terms produced a de facto life sentence; PSI lacked background info and court relied only on offense severity | Affirmed. Sentences were standard-range, PSI considered, consecutive terms justified by separate, violent offenses and not "grossly disparate." |
| Whether court failed to consider mental-health and rehabilitative needs | Court considered mental health and rehabilitation but reasonably found rehabilitation speculative and bipolar not causal to these crimes | Court dismissed his bipolar disorder without expert evidence and failed to account for rehabilitation potential | Affirmed. Trial court explicitly considered mental-health and rehab, rejected defense evidence as not persuasive; challenge to lack of expert testimony waived. |
| Whether court ignored Bankes's admission of guilt and remorse | Court considered allocution/remorse but found it outweighed by severity of conduct | Court's expressions of remorse were not given meaningful weight at sentencing | Affirmed. Court considered remorse but reasonably concluded it was insufficient in light of two-year pattern of severe abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977 (Pa. Super. 2018) (procedural requirements for discretionary-sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing merits from substantial-question inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-DeJusus, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when consecutive sentences raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to consider rehabilitative needs can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Clemat, 218 A.3d 944 (Pa. Super. 2019) (sentencing abuse-of-discretion standard; factors a court must consider)
- Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 A.3d 913 (Pa. Super. 2020) (trial court discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard-range sentence with a PSI is not excessive per se)
- Commonwealth v. Clary, 226 A.3d 571 (Pa. Super. 2020) (no "volume discount" required for multiple convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellant's duty to ensure certified record is complete)
- Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186 (Pa. Super. 2015) (describing DSM-5 as the psychiatric diagnostic authority)