Com. v. Campbell, W.
Com. v. Campbell, W. No. 1525 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- On Sept. 23, 2015, William Jerome Campbell asked victim Marshall Breedlove for money, received $10 and coffee, then later entered Breedlove’s home under false pretenses after using crack cocaine.
- Inside the home Campbell wielded a knife, attacked Breedlove, forced him onto a couch, demanded money, and during a struggle inflicted knife wounds to the victim’s hand and neck.
- Campbell pled guilty on July 6, 2016 to robbery, possession of an instrument of crime, simple assault, theft by unlawful taking, and terroristic threats in an open plea; sentencing was deferred for a PSI.
- On Aug. 16, 2016 the court imposed 10–20 years for robbery, consecutive 1–2 years for terroristic threats, and 3 years’ probation for possession of an instrument of crime, for an aggregate 11–22 years plus probation (deadly-weapon enhancement applied).
- Campbell filed a timely post-sentence motion claiming the sentence was manifestly excessive and the court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors; the motion was denied and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion / manifestly excessive | Campbell: sentence was excessive, court failed to consider public protection, gravity, rehabilitative needs, remorse, substance abuse history, dated nonviolent record, cooperation, and non-life-threatening injury | Commonwealth: court considered PSI and relevant statutory factors; sentencing within court’s discretion | Court: No substantial question presented; sentencing judge did consider factors; appeal fails and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for reviewing sentencing abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 151 A.3d 1100 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural requirements for challenging discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discretionary-sentencing challenge treated as petition for allowance of appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 1088 (Pa. Super. 2016) (what constitutes a substantial question on discretionary-sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2010) (claim that court inadequately considered mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016) (presumption that judge considered PSI and relevant information)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same presumption regarding PSI and sentencing consideration)