Com. v. Boyer, T.
478 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- On March 22, 2015, police surveilling a residence heard shots and observed a man hanging out of a vehicle’s rear passenger window; officers pursued and stopped the car within half a mile.
- Three occupants were detained; Appellant Tyrell Boyer was the only rear passenger. A revolver was recovered from the rear passenger floor of the vehicle at the station.
- During booking, officers found a Mentos container on Boyer containing nineteen .22 rounds matching fired casings from the revolver.
- Boyer was charged with multiple offenses; he was tried by bench on the persons not to possess a firearm count and convicted. Remaining counts were severed for later proceedings.
- At sentencing the court imposed the statutory maximum of 10 years (within the guidelines standard range given his prior record), finding Boyer not amenable to rehabilitation and a danger to society. Boyer filed a post-sentence motion and appealed, challenging the discretionary aspects of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 5–10 year sentence (statutory max) was manifestly excessive and reflected failure to consider mitigating factors | Boyer argued the court relied solely on offense gravity and ignored his personal circumstances (learning disability, depression, difficult childhood, substance issues) so the sentence was excessive | Trial court considered presentence report, Boyer’s age, prior failures at rehabilitation, risk to public, and properly weighed factors; sentence was within guidelines | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence not clearly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahmad v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (explains procedural requirements to appeal discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Griffin v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sets four-part test to invoke appellate jurisdiction for discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Diehl v. Commonwealth, 140 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2016) (describes when a substantial question is presented on discretionary sentencing)
- Macias v. Commonwealth, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holds claim that court sentenced based solely on offense seriousness raises a substantial question)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (directs appellate review to consider nature of offense, defendant history, sentencing court observations, and guidelines)