Com. v. Dixon, D.
351 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- In 2008 Duwayne A. Dixon, Jr. shot Andre Ripley, who had been scheduled to testify against a gang leader; Ripley was severely injured and hospitalized.
- Dixon was convicted in January 2013 of aggravated assault, conspiracy, criminal attempt–homicide, intimidation of a witness, and retaliation against a witness.
- Initial sentencing (March 2013) imposed an aggregate term of 28 to 56 years plus 40 years probation; this Court vacated and remanded for sentencing errors (merger and other irregularities).
- After two resentencings and additional appellate review (including a recusal/remand for judicial remarks indicating bias), the trial court on remand imposed an aggregate sentence of 16 years, 11 months to 33 years, 10 months imprisonment on February 9, 2017.
- Dixon filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of the resentencing (arguing excessiveness, undue focus on retribution and victim injury/double-counting, failure to consider rehabilitation, and improper consecutive aggravated-range terms); the trial court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dixon) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the resentencing was unreasonable/manifestly excessive and an abuse of discretion | Sentence is excessive, focused on retribution and victim injury rather than Dixon's rehabilitative needs | Court considered guidelines, PSI, institutional misconduct, and lack of amenability to rehabilitation; sentence within discretion | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence appropriate under §9721 factors |
| Whether the court improperly "double-counted" the seriousness of the offense already reflected in guidelines | Court repeatedly emphasized offense seriousness and effectively double-counted offense gravity score | Sentencing court relied on other legitimate factors (prison misconduct, lack of remorse, nature of facts) beyond the guidelines | Affirmed — no impermissible double-counting shown |
| Whether the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs | Court failed to explain why consecutive aggravated-range sentences were necessary and ignored rehabilitation | Record (PSI, misconduct history) shows court considered rehabilitative prospects and found Dixon not amenable to rehabilitation | Affirmed — court considered rehabilitation and relied on evidence of misconduct and lack of maturity |
| Whether imposing consecutive aggravated-range sentences was improper | Consecutive aggravated-range terms are overly severe and unjustified | Imposition of consecutive vs. concurrent sentences is within sentencing court’s discretion under §9721 | Affirmed — consecutive sentences permissible and not a substantial question of law against discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Coulverson v. Commonwealth, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary-aspects challenge treated as petition for permission to appeal)
- Leatherby v. Commonwealth, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standards for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Griffin v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (substantial-question analysis is case-specific)
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (what constitutes a substantial question under sentencing code)
- Mouzon v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (how Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) and sentencing excessiveness claims may raise a substantial question)
- Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to consider rehabilitative needs can raise a substantial question)
- Seagraves v. Commonwealth, 103 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing review)
- Shugars v. Commonwealth, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing discretion and abuse-of-discretion explained)
- Fullin v. Commonwealth, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (same)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 2008) (imposition of consecutive sentences lies within sentencing court’s discretion)
- Clarke v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. 2013) (presence of PSI creates a presumption the court considered defendant’s character and mitigating factors)