Com. v. Clark, A., 971 WDA 2021

Appellant Antonio Clark committed two separate 2015 offenses: (1) Jan. 8, 2015 controlled buy—sold undercover detective $250 worth of heroin in ~200 individual bags; police recovered heroin, marijuana, the buy money, and a phone; (2) Oct. 5, 2015 police saw Clark with a pistol in his waistband; he lacked a carry permit and had a prior felony robbery conviction prohibiting firearm possession.
Clark pleaded guilty to PWID and related counts at one docket and to person not to possess a firearm and related counts at a second docket; sentencing was deferred for a PSI.
At sentencing (Aug. 22, 2018) the court had the PSI, heard mitigating evidence (PTSD diagnosis, eligibility for treatment, remorse, jail-program participation), but declined to run the sentences concurrently.
Court imposed 18–36 months (PWID) and 48–96 months (person not to possess), both at bottom of the mitigated range, to run consecutively for an aggregate 5½–11 years plus 5 years’ probation.
Appeal was initially quashed for filing a single notice of appeal (Walker issue); PCRA relief reinstated appeal rights; on direct appeal Clark challenged the discretionary aspects of sentencing as excessive and insufficiently accounting for mitigation.
The Superior Court affirmed: it held the trial court considered the PSI and mitigating evidence, gave special weight to Clark’s plea, reasonably explained consecutive sentences based on separate incidents, and did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether the aggregate sentence (consecutive mitigated-range terms) was manifestly excessive because the court ignored mitigation and Clark’s rehabilitative/mental-health needs	Sentence was excessive; court failed to account for contrition, PTSD/drug treatment needs, and rehabilitation efforts	Court considered the PSI and mitigating evidence, emphasized plea/acceptance of responsibility, imposed bottom-of-mitigated-range terms, and ran sentences consecutively because crimes occurred on separate dates	Affirmed. No abuse of discretion: PSI and mitigation were considered; sentencing within mitigated ranges; consecutive terms within discretion

Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requirement regarding separate notices of appeal; governing procedural rule later refined)
Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa. 2021) (clarification/limitation on Walker)
Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307 (Pa. Super. 2019) (four-part jurisdictional test for discretionary-sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2018) (consecutive-vs-concurrent consecutive-sentence substantial-question analysis)
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consecutive sentences present a substantial question only in extreme circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (aggregate sentence extreme-circumstances standard)
Commonwealth v. Wallace, 244 A.3d 1261 (Pa. Super. 2020) (claim that court failed to consider mitigation can present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925 (Pa. Super. 2017) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant information)
Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2013) (imposition of consecutive sentences is within sentencing court's discretion)
Commonwealth v. Naranjo, 53 A.3d 66 (Pa. Super. 2012) (court may emphasize certain factors without rendering sentence unreasonable)