Com. v. Bowling, K.
Com. v. Bowling, K. No. 1650 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- Bowling was convicted of rape of a child, aggravated indecent assault of a child under 13, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child under 16, and two counts of incest based on abuses of two minor females from 2003–2013.
- Victim 1 was 8 at the first assault; Bowling engaged in ongoing sexual activity with her during the period.
- Victim 2 was about 10 at first assault; Bowling showered with her, digitally penetrated her, and later raped her anally when she was ~14.
- On March 24, 2016, a jury found Bowling guilty of the charged offenses; on August 29, 2016, he was sentenced to aggregate terms running consecutively (rape of a child: 240–480 months; other counts within ranges).
- Bowling filed a post-sentence motion and a timely appeal with a Rule 1925(b) statement challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
- The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding no substantial question existed to warrant review of the discretionary sentencing claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowling raised a substantial question to review his discretionary sentence. | Bowling claims the aggregate 32.5–90 year sentence is essentially a life sentence. | The sentences fall within guidelines and consecutive imposition does not raise a substantial question. | No substantial question; consecutive sentences within guideline ranges do not warrant discretionary review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for reviewing discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Diehl, 140 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2016) (substantial question requires colorable argument of error in sentencing decision)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive sentences within guidelines generally do not raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (compliance with Rule 2119(f) supports review of discretionary aspects)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 911 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. 2006) (mitigating-factor claims generally do not raise substantial question)