Com. v. Brown, J.
719 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 30, 2017Background
- On November 28, 2015, Jordon Scott Brown set his family trailer on fire and fired a shotgun at two state troopers responding to a call; trooper Harris was shot at and placed at ongoing risk.
- Brown pled guilty on September 2, 2016 to attempted manslaughter of a law enforcement officer, arson (placing person in danger), and reckless endangerment in a plea capped at an aggregate 18–36 year sentence.
- At sentencing (Dec. 1, 2016) the court’s Sentencing Guidelines form showed OGS 13 and PRS 3 for attempted manslaughter, with a deadly-weapon enhancement; it stated the standard range as 96–114 months for attempted manslaughter.
- The court imposed consecutive aggravated-range sentences: 10–20 years for attempted manslaughter and 8–16 years for arson, totaling the 18–36 year plea cap.
- Brown filed post-sentence motions and timely appealed, raising claims that the court miscalculated the guidelines and failed to provide reasons for aggravated-range sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court miscalculated the standard-range for attempted manslaughter | Court used incorrect starting point; standard range should have been lower (78–96 months) | Court correctly applied OGS 13, PRS 3, and deadly-weapon enhancement to derive 96–114 months | Court affirmed calculation; 96–114 months was correct starting range |
| Whether the court provided adequate reasons for imposing aggravated-range sentences | Court gave no on-the-record or contemporaneous written reasons for aggravated sentences | Court articulated on-the-record reasons (gravity of crime, danger to officers, victims’ impact), satisfying § 9721(b) by stating reasons in defendant’s presence | Court held the on-the-record statement satisfied the contemporaneous-reason requirement; affirmed sentence |
| Whether the sentencing claims raise substantial questions for appellate review | (Preservation not contested) Brown contends both errors merit review | Commonwealth contends reasons were given and calculations correct; procedural prerequisites satisfied | Court found substantial questions existed and addressed the merits; no relief granted |
| Whether any other procedural requirement (Rule 2119(f), preservation) was unmet | Brown complied with preservation and 2119(f) | Commonwealth did not dispute compliance | Court found Brown met procedural requirements for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for discretionary-aspect sentencing review and preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (requirements for a Rule 2119(f) statement and focusing inquiry on reasons for appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Raybuck, 915 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing court must begin from correct guideline starting point; miscalculation requires vacatur)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 667 A.2d 215 (Pa. Super. 1995) (judge may satisfy § 9721(b) written-reasons requirement by stating reasons on the record in defendant’s presence)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate court will not disturb sentence where defendant only challenges absence of reasons and not the substance)