Com. v. Benoit, A., Com. v. Benoit, A. No. 478 WDA 2016

Arthur P. Benoit, III assaulted his elderly, infirm father and his father’s home-care nurse in January–February 2015; incidents included shoving the nurse, breaking a wheelchair and phone, striking the father, threatening to kill him with antlers and a pen, and damaging a bedroom door.
Two separate dockets: case 261-2015 (aggravated assault and simple assault relating to Jan. 26) and case 616-2015 (terroristic threats, criminal mischief, two counts of simple assault, and harassment relating to Feb. 17).
Cases were consolidated; a non-jury trial on Nov. 20, 2015 resulted in convictions on all charged offenses.
Sentencing (Mar. 15, 2016): 1½–3 years for aggravated assault (261), consecutive terms of 4–12 months and 4–12 months for the two simple assaults plus 4–12 months for terroristic threats (616), and 1 year probation for criminal mischief — aggregate 2½–6 years’ incarceration followed by 1 year probation.
Benoit did not file a post-sentence motion; he timely appealed and filed a Rule 1925(b) statement that generally challenged the discretionary aspects of sentencing but did not specify many arguments later raised on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence at top of aggravated range was an abuse of discretion	Commonwealth: sentence is within court’s discretion given convictions and facts	Benoit: sentence excessive; court relied on impermissible factors, bias for declining plea, overemphasis on criminal history, and failure to consider mental-health mitigation	Waived; district court affirmed — sentencing challenge not preserved by post-sentence motion or sufficiently specific Rule 1925(b) statement

Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing challenges are not reviewable as of right)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for invoking appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence waived if no post-sentence motion filed)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (preservation requirement for sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discussion of appellate preservation and Rule 2119(f)/Sentencing Code considerations)
Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sentence challenge waived without post-sentence motion)