Com. v. Brown, S.
Com. v. Brown, S. No. 545 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 22, 2017Background
- On October 24, 2009, Sharif Brown robbed three separate victims at gunpoint during a short crime spree; shots were fired during a struggle but no one was injured. Police chased and arrested Brown after he brandished a firearm.
- Brown was convicted by jury of three counts of robbery, multiple firearms offenses (initially 13 counts), assault-related charges, and related offenses.
- At initial sentencing the court imposed an aggregate 17½ to 35 years’ imprisonment; Brown appealed, and this Court vacated multiple firearm sentences (treating possession as a single continuous offense) and vacated mandatory-minimum sentencing under Alleyne for resentencing.
- At resentencing the trial court, informed by a presentence investigation and prior proceedings, imposed an aggregate 3 to 6 years’ incarceration (all terms concurrent) plus five years’ probation; Brown received credit for time served and was released on probation.
- The Commonwealth appealed contending the reduced sentence was excessively lenient, an unreasonable departure from the sentencing guidelines, and insufficiently justified on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing from 17½–35 yrs to 3–6 yrs + 5 yrs probation was an abuse of discretion as excessively lenient and an unreasonable departure from the guidelines | Sentence was a drastic downward departure from guideline ranges (guidelines recommended ~6–7.5 yrs per robbery; deadly-weapon enhancements would yield 23–40.5 yrs aggregate); court gave no adequate reasons for such mitigation | Trial court considered PSI, Brown’s rehabilitation, support, and presented reasons for departure; sentence reflects discretion and consideration of statutory factors | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court adequately considered §9721(b)/§9781(d) factors and explained departure |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be submitted to the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sets deferential standard for appellate review of sentencing and factors to evaluate reasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa.Super. 2014) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767 (Pa.Super. 2008) (Commonwealth can raise claim that sentence is excessively lenient)
- Commonwealth v. Childs, 664 A.2d 994 (Pa.Super. 1995) (establishes that Commonwealth’s excessive-leniency claim can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa.Super. 2015) (where PSI exists, court is presumed to have considered relevant sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (discusses presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant factors)