Com. v. Braxton, T., 2127 EDA 2024

Tyree Braxton pled guilty to murder in the third degree (for killing his stepfather with a clothes iron), aggravated assault (against a UPS driver the same day), and possessing an instrument of crime, for two incidents occurring on December 29, 2022 in Philadelphia.
Braxton received an aggregate sentence of 18 to 36 years’ imprisonment: 15-30 years for murder, consecutive to 3-6 years for aggravated assault.
Braxton claimed, without conclusive evidence, that his actions were due to an adverse reaction to synthetic marijuana.
After sentencing, Braxton timely moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for what he argued was a single continuing episode. The motion was denied.
Appellate counsel failed to file a direct appeal; Braxton later obtained permission to file a nunc pro tunc appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
On appeal, Braxton challenged only the excessiveness of the aggregate sentence and the decision to run the sentences consecutively.

Issue	Braxton's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences totaling 18-36 years for crimes allegedly stemming from a single episode	The sentence was excessive, failed to properly weigh mitigation and Braxton's acceptance of responsibility, and over-emphasized retribution and public protection	The crimes were violent, involved two victims, and justified consecutive sentences; Braxton’s mitigation evidence was speculative and not proven	The only preserved issue (challenge to consecutive sentences) did not raise a substantial question warranting review; claim denied

Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sets forth requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (unpreserved sentencing arguments are waived)
Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains when an excessive sentence claim raises a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive sentences only rarely raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to consider mitigating evidence alone is not a substantial question for appeal)