Com. v. Bey, F.
Com. v. Bey, F. No. 2966 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- On August 5, 2015, Faruq Bey assaulted 63-year-old hotel employee Kishor Mehta in a prolonged, repeated beating captured on video; Mehta suffered serious, lasting injuries. Bey was arrested at the scene.
- Bey pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, and possession of drug paraphernalia; sentencing was deferred and mitigation evidence (psychological report, testimony from Dr. Tepper and Bey’s girlfriend) was submitted.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 9 to 20 years’ imprisonment on the aggravated assault count (no further penalties on other counts), a term outside the sentencing guidelines.
- Bey filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal arguing the sentence was excessive and the court failed properly to weigh mitigating factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).
- The trial court explained on the record that it considered mitigation but emphasized the assault’s brutality, the repeated returns to continue the attack, and public protection; it denied reconsideration.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding the trial court had considered the statutory factors, did not abuse its discretion, and the outside-guidelines sentence was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bey) | Defendant/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 9–20 year sentence (outside guidelines) is excessive | Sentence is excessive because the court failed to adequately consider Bey’s troubled background, psychological history, guilty plea, and rehabilitative needs | Court considered mitigation, viewed video and victim impact, emphasized severity, repeated nature of attack, and protection of public; guidelines are advisory | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court properly weighed factors and sentence is reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoch, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural requirements for discretionary-sentence review)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test to permit review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (appellate standard and review principles for discretionary sentencing; abuse‑of‑discretion and unreasonableness inquiries)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 32 A.3d 232 (Pa. 2011) (factors outside offense elements may inform sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim plus alleged failure to consider mitigation raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. 2012) (claim that court relied solely on seriousness of offense raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 510 A.2d 760 (Pa. Super. 1987) (older authority on balancing rehabilitation and confinement; court explains not controlling under current Sentencing Code)