Com. v. Duncan, H., Jr., Com. v. Duncan, H., Jr. No. 1645 MDA 2016

Appellee Horace Duncan, Jr. is a Tier III sex offender required to register under 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10–9799.41 based on prior convictions for multiple sexual offenses.
On December 17, 2015, Duncan was charged with failing to register his vehicle as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(g)(6), an offense criminalized for sex offenders by 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1.
Following a bench trial on August 19, 2016, the trial court convicted Duncan of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1 and sentenced him to 6 to 23 months’ imprisonment.
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, because this was a second § 4915.1 violation and Duncan qualified as a repeat violent offender, the standard-range minimum was 120 months (10–20 years).
The Commonwealth filed a post-sentence motion arguing the sentence was excessively lenient and that the court failed to state reasons for departing from the Guidelines; the trial court denied the motion.
The Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding the trial court failed to adequately consider statutory sentencing factors and to explain its substantial downward departure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence far below the Guidelines without sufficient reasons	Commonwealth: sentence was excessively lenient and court failed to state reasons for departing from Guidelines as required by law	Duncan: trial court considered his reporting history, lack of new criminality, and partial compliance with vehicle-registration obligations warranting a below-Guidelines sentence	Held: Vacated and remanded — court abused discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence without adequate consideration of 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9781(d) and 9721(b) and without an adequate on-record rationale for such a large departure

Popielarcheck v. Commonwealth, 151 A.3d 1088 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
Phillips v. Commonwealth, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (preservation and review of sentencing issues)
Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (trial courts must state reasons for departures and appellate review considers reasonableness under § 9781)
Garcia-Rivera v. Commonwealth, 983 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2009) (requirement that court place reasons for Guideline deviation on the record)
Fullin v. Commonwealth, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing)
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 946 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 2008) (substantial-question jurisprudence for sentencing appeals)
Kenner v. Commonwealth, 784 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. 2001) (similar holding that lenient sentencing challenges can present a substantial question)
Daniel v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 494 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discussing § 9721(b) sentencing factors)