Com. v. Casiano, F., Com. v. Casiano, F. No. 3560 EDA 2015

On May 6, 2012, Frank Casiano and co-defendant Stephen Masten broke into David Phillips’s home, assaulted him with a shovel, and Masten gouged out Phillips’s eyes; the victim survived but is permanently blind.
Casiano admitted involvement to multiple acquaintances and described the assault; he and Masten later discussed the attack and joked about it.
Casiano was charged with multiple offenses; he entered an open guilty plea to aggravated assault, burglary, and criminal conspiracy; other counts were nolle prossed.
A pre-sentence investigation and mental-health evaluation were prepared; sentencing occurred July 10, 2015, with extensive victim impact testimony and mitigation testimony from defense.
The trial court sentenced Casiano to aggregate 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment followed by 20 years’ probation (consecutive terms). Post-sentence motions were denied; Casiano appealed alleging an excessive sentence and sentencing errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence was manifestly excessive/ unreasonable	Casiano: aggregate 20–40 years + 20 years probation is effectively a life sentence and excessive.	Commonwealth/trial court: sentence warranted by the heinous facts and need to protect public.	Affirmed — sentence not an abuse of discretion.
Failure to state reasons for deviating from guidelines	Casiano: trial court did not contemporaneously explain deviations or identify specific aggravating factors.	Trial court: considered guidelines, PSI, victim impact, mental-health eval, and explained cruelty and lack of remorse as rationale.	Held that court sufficiently considered factors and justification supported the sentence.
Failure to consider rehabilitative needs and individualized factors (42 Pa.C.S. § 9721)	Casiano: court ignored statutory factors (rehabilitation, character, upbringing).	Trial court: had and reviewed PSI and mental-health report, heard mitigation testimony; court is presumed aware of relevant information.	Held that presence of PSI and record of mitigation means court considered those factors; no reversible error.
Imposition of consecutive sentences	Casiano: consecutive terms increase harshness; challenges discretion.	Trial court/Commonwealth: sentencing court has discretion under § 9721 to order consecutive sentences; not an extreme case.	Held that consecutive sentencing decision did not present a substantial question and was not unduly harsh here.

Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing discretion)
Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirements for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (what constitutes a substantial question reviewed case-by-case)
Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of substantial question when sentencing contradicts Sentencing Code)
Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (misapplication of Sentencing Guidelines presents a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to consider individualized circumstances can raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive sentences present substantial question only in extreme circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (when PSI exists, appellate courts presume the sentencing judge considered relevant character information)
Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences)
Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2006) (generally consecutive sentence posture does not raise a substantial question)