Com. v. Carrington, D.
Com. v. Carrington, D. No. 1459 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Darla Carrington pled guilty to third-degree murder for the January 4, 2014 killing of Dennis Green after both smoked crack cocaine at her home while her two young daughters slept nearby.
- Carrington admitted striking Green with a hammer and repeatedly stabbing him; the autopsy showed strangulation, six stab wounds, and multiple abrasions; an eight-year-old daughter witnessed the attack.
- Carrington claimed she acted while under the influence, believing Green was attempting to rape her and might rape her daughters; she suffered no injuries indicating an actual assault by Green.
- Plea agreement set the minimum sentence to be determined by the court within a 13–20 year range, with the maximum sentence equal to twice the minimum; sentencing guidelines recommended 7.5–10 years.
- At sentencing the court heard victim impact statements, a presentence report, and mitigation about Carrington’s traumatic childhood, mental health issues, substance abuse, and history of prior violence (including a 2011 assault conviction).
- The court imposed the top-end plea-agreement sentence of 20–40 years (statutory maximum); Carrington appealed, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive and the court failed to consider mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion / manifestly excessive | Carrington: court imposed statutory maximum without adequately considering mitigating factors (trauma, mental health, substance abuse, intoxication claim) | Commonwealth: court considered record, presentence report, sentencing guidelines, and weighed aggravating facts and public protection | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; judge reviewed PSR, considered factors, and explained reasons for aggravated sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (definition of a substantial question for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (allegation that court imposed aggravated range sentence without considering mitigating factors can raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016) (presumption that sentencing court considered relevant information when it had a presentence investigation report)