Com. v. Brown, R., Com. v. Brown, R. No. 2047 MDA 2016

Robert Wayne Brown was convicted of 41 sexual-offense counts involving four minor step-grandchildren and originally sentenced to an aggregate 40 to 120 years.
On appeal, Superior Court identified an Alleyne issue and remanded; the Commonwealth’s allowance was later denied and Brown was resentenced on November 15, 2016.
At resentencing the trial court amended its earlier order to remove mandatory-language tied to minimum sentences in light of Alleyne and imposed consecutive top-count terms for each victim (others concurrent), producing the same aggregate exposure reflected in the resentencing.
Brown appealed the discretionary aspects of the resentencing, arguing the court failed to state reasons on the record for imposing aggravated-range and consecutive sentences.
The Superior Court refused to reach the merits because Brown failed to preserve the sentencing claim at the sentencing hearing or in a timely post-sentence motion; the court added that, even if preserved, the claim lacked merit because the sentencing court had a PSI and adequately considered relevant factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court abused discretion by not stating reasons on the record for imposing aggravated-range and consecutive sentences	Commonwealth argued resentencing complied with law; sentencing court had PSI and victims’ impact statements to inform its decision	Brown argued the court failed to justify aggravated-range and consecutive sentences on the record, violating sentencing statutory requirements	Appeal denied: court found the claim waived for failure to preserve at sentencing or in a timely post-sentence motion; alternatively, claim lacked merit because the PSI and record informed the sentencing judge’s discretion
Whether Alleyne error required a different sentencing analysis on remand	Commonwealth maintained that removal of mandatory-minimum language left sentences within guideline ranges and properly informed by the PSI	Brown contended resentencing still required contemporaneous on-the-record reasons for any departure or aggravated consecutive terms	Court held Alleyne required removing mandatory-minimum constraint; resentencing was within guideline ranges and, given the PSI and stated victim impact, no further on-the-record departure explanation was necessary

Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for considering discretionary-sentencing claims)
Tuladziecki v. Commonwealth, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (treat appellate brief as petition for permission to appeal discretionary sentencing)
Yanoff v. Commonwealth, 690 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 1997) (procedural posture for discretionary-sentencing review)
Mann v. Commonwealth, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (objections to discretionary aspects of sentence waived if not raised at sentencing or in timely motion)
Ventura v. Commonwealth, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PSI can inform and satisfy requirement that sentencing court place reasons on record)
Mouzon v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (court must explain reasons for departure from guidelines)
Devers v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (sentencing judge presumed aware of PSI and weighed considerations)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt)
Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. 2014) (holding that certain "proof at sentence" provisions of statutory mandatory-minimum scheme are invalid)