Com. v. Colosimo, K., Com. v. Colosimo, K. No. 1357 EDA 2016

Appellant Kevin Colosimo pled guilty (open plea) to four counts of burglary and two counts of conspiracy (one to commit arson, one to commit burglary) on December 3, 2015.
On March 8, 2016, the trial court sentenced Colosimo to an aggregate term of 8½ to 17 years’ imprisonment.
Colosimo filed a timely post-sentence motion asserting only that his sentence was clearly unreasonable and excessive; the motion was denied.
Colosimo appealed and filed a Rule 1925(b) concise statement; he raised two issues: (1) the sentencing court improperly considered nolle prossed charges when crafting sentence, and (2) the aggregate consecutive sentence was excessive.
The Superior Court reviewed whether Colosimo met procedural requirements to challenge the discretionary aspects of sentence and addressed waiver and the merits where preserved.
The Superior Court affirmed, finding waiver on the nolle prosse claim and no substantial question or abuse of discretion as to excessiveness/consecutive sentencing.

Issue	Colosimo's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court impermissibly relied on nolle prossed charges when imposing sentence	Colosimo: Court considered 104 nolle prossed charges to enhance sentence	Commonwealth: Claim not raised in post-sentence motion; sentencing court expressly said it did not consider nolle prossed charges	Waived for appellate review; even if preserved, references were passing and court stated it disregarded nolle prossed charges
Whether the consecutive aggregate sentence was excessive/unreasonable	Colosimo: Consecutive nature made otherwise standard-range sentences excessive	Commonwealth/Trial Court: Sentences were within statutory range; court considered PSR, crime nature, impact, counsel arguments, rehabilitation needs	No substantial question shown; no abuse of discretion; aggregate 8½–17 years affirmed

Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (four-pronged test for reviewing discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (substantial-question standard for discretionary sentencing appeals)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 787 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 2001) (waiver when sentencing court not given chance to reconsider sentence)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 666 A.2d 691 (Pa. Super. 1995) (sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 965 A.2d 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (enhancement based on nolle prossed charges can present a substantial question; passing references may not)
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. Super. 2002) (bald excessiveness claims usually do not raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive-sentence complaint alone generally does not raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Cross, 695 A.2d 831 (Pa. Super. 1997) (sentence within statutory limits does not, by itself, raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSR and relevant information)