Com. v. Coleman, R.
230 EDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 6, 2021Background
- Victim H.F., a young man with special needs, was approached near the South Philadelphia Library on Sept. 20, 2017 by Ronald Coleman, a maintenance worker at the adjacent recreation center.
- Coleman led H.F. into an unoccupied room at the recreation center, ordered him to pull down his pants, and anally penetrated him while threatening further assault; H.F. identified Coleman in a photo array and underwent a sexual assault exam.
- Surveillance cameras at the recreation center were inoperative that day and Coleman knew they were down.
- Coleman was arrested, tried by bench trial, and on July 1, 2019 was convicted of rape, IDSI, sexual assault, indecent assault, and simple assault.
- On Dec. 3, 2019 Coleman received an aggregate sentence of 8–16 years’ incarceration plus a consecutive 4-year reporting probation tail; he appealed asserting the sentence was an abuse of discretion for failing to consider his background, rehabilitation potential, and mental health.
- The Superior Court held Coleman failed to preserve the discretionary-sentencing claim; it also concluded that, even if preserved, the record (including the PSI and sentencing hearing) showed the court considered mitigation and the sentence was not clearly unreasonable, so it affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coleman’s guideline-range sentence was an abuse of discretion | Coleman: sentence was excessive; trial court failed to consider his background, rehabilitative needs, and mental-health issues | Commonwealth: claim waived for failure to preserve; sentencing court reviewed PSI, heard mitigation, and acted within guideline discretion given crime severity | Waived for lack of preservation; court would affirm on merits because PSI and hearing show consideration of factors and sentence not clearly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural steps for appellate review of discretionary-aspect claims)
- Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discretionary sentencing challenges are not entitled to review as of right)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (preservation required by raising issues at sentencing or in post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (issues not raised at sentencing/post-sentence motion are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PSI informs the court; when relied upon, court presumed aware of relevant sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reversing guideline-range sentence is clear unreasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate court will not re-weigh sentencing factors or substitute its judgment for the trial court)