Com. v. Carter, D., Com. v. Carter, D. No. 1252 MDA 2016

On Oct. 18, 2014 parole agents visited David Kemper Carter’s home; they found a loaded .22 semi‑automatic pistol under a pillow on the couch, multiple individually packaged baggies of marijuana, a digital scale, holster, and ammunition. Carter was on state parole and a convicted felon.
Carter’s wife testified the gun belonged to her; the trial court found her testimony not credible and adjudicated Carter guilty of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (VUFA).
Carter later pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver (PWID) pursuant to a plea agreement calling for concurrent sentences.
At sentencing (July 9, 2015) Carter argued for a mitigated sentence based on health problems, cooperation with parole agents, and motive (self‑protection); the Commonwealth sought an aggravated sentence given children were present and Carter’s prior drug and weapons convictions.
The court imposed a standard‑range sentence of 5 to 10 years for the VUFA conviction (concurrent on PWID), denied reconsideration, and after PCRA proceedings Carter’s appeal was reinstated and prosecuted to the Superior Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion because the court failed to consider mitigating factors	Carter: court did not adequately weigh medical issues, his cooperation with agents, and his motive for possessing the firearm	Commonwealth/Trial court: court considered mitigating factors, had PSI, imposed lowest standard‑range term, and requested appropriate medical classification in custody	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered factors and standard‑range sentence was not clearly unreasonable

Commonwealth v. McLaine, 150 A.3d 70 (Pa. Super. 2016) (describes four‑part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (framework for appellate review of sentences and when remand is required)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing court considered information when it had awareness of relevant facts)
Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. 2005) (recognizing substantial question where appellant asserts court failed to consider mitigating factors)
Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard‑range sentence with PSI is unlikely to be deemed excessive on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing court weighed mitigating factors when presentence information was available)