Com. v. Braeunig, D.
332 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Daniel P. Braeunig pled guilty to homicide by vehicle, DUI – high rate, and DUI – general impairment arising from a December 28, 2015 head‑on crash that killed the other driver; his blood alcohol was .16% after the crash.
- The day before the fatal crash Braeunig had been found passed out in his parked vehicle with alcohol and drug paraphernalia; a prior blood draw then showed BAC .14% and he was processed and released.
- The pre‑sentence investigation noted extensive substance abuse, mental health (bipolar) history, prior/new DUI charges in New Jersey, prior criminal history, and completion of a drug treatment program.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 60 to 120 months’ imprisonment (statutory maximum on homicide by vehicle), plus concurrent shorter terms on the DUI counts.
- Braeunig filed post‑sentence motions and appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence, overemphasizing volitional misconduct, relying improperly on unresolved New Jersey DUI charges, double‑counting recklessness, and insufficiently weighing mitigating factors (rehab, guilty plea, voluntary surrender, injuries).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the statutory maximum sentence | Braeunig: Court failed to provide adequate reasons; ignored mitigation; overemphasized volitional choices and prior open NJ DUIs; double‑counted recklessness | Commonwealth: Court considered PSI, guidelines, victim impact, rehab needs, and expressly explained reasons for an aggravated sentence | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
| Whether it was improper to consider unresolved New Jersey DUI charges | Braeunig: Open charges lack disposition and facts, so they should not inform sentence | Commonwealth: Court may consider prior arrests so long as it recognizes no conviction | Court may consider open arrests; used them only as one factor regarding danger to community |
| Whether the court double‑counted reckless conduct | Braeunig: Recklessness is an element and cannot be separately used to enhance sentence | Commonwealth: Court relied on multiple factors in PSI and record, not impermissible double‑counting | No reversible error; court’s rationale supported by PSI and record |
| Whether court failed to weigh mitigating factors (addiction, bipolar disorder, rehab, guilty plea, surrender) | Braeunig: These should have significantly mitigated sentence; court misapprehended rehab history | Commonwealth: Sentencing court reviewed PSI, heard allocution and victim impact, and considered these factors | Court considered mitigating evidence; its weighing was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for discretionary‑sentencing review)
- Mastromino v. Commonwealth, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no automatic right to appeal discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claim of inadequate reasons for outside‑guideline sentence can present substantial question)
- Downing v. Commonwealth, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PSI may inform and support sentencing decision)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for sentencing discretionary‑aspects challenges)
- Bowen v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requirements when deviating from guideline range)
- Dutter v. Commonwealth, 617 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1992) (court must place reasons on record when departing from guidelines)
- Yuhasz v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 1111 (Pa. 2007) (guidelines advisory only)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (guidelines inform but do not limit sentencing discretion)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 481 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1984) (court may consider prior arrests not resulting in conviction)
- Sheller v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PSI and consideration of public protection support sentences beyond aggravated range)
- Fowler v. Commonwealth, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing court that considered PSI satisfied requirement to state reasons on record)