Com. v. Eddinger, D.
Com. v. Eddinger, D. No. 2736 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Appellant Daniel B. Eddinger, formerly a 22‑year‑old coach/tutor, pleaded guilty to Corruption of Minors (18 Pa.C.S. § 6301) and Indecent Assault of a person <16 (18 Pa.C.S. § 3126) for repeated sexual assaults of a 13‑year‑old about 15 years earlier.
- He entered an open guilty plea on April 8, 2016.
- On July 25, 2016 the court imposed the statutory maximum on the Corruption charge (2½–5 years) and two years’ probation consecutive on the Indecent Assault charge.
- Appellant filed a post‑sentence motion; it was denied. He appealed, raising discretionary‑sentencing claims.
- The trial court had a presentence investigation and acknowledged mitigating factors (remorse, cooperation, lack of prior record, therapy) but imposed an above‑guidelines sentence based on offense seriousness, ongoing course of conduct, position of trust, victim’s age, long‑term harm, and public protection concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court should review discretionary‑sentencing claim | Eddinger complied with procedural requirements and presented a plausible Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement raising a substantial question | Commonwealth does not dispute procedural compliance; Court must determine substantial question and reach merits | Court found procedural requirements met and a substantial question was raised; reviewed merits |
| Whether sentencing above the guidelines was unreasonable/excessive | Sentence was excessive given lack of priors, remorse, rehabilitation, stable family/job; guideline recommended restorative sanctions | Trial court weighed guidelines and mitigating factors but emphasized gravity, repeated conduct, trust, victim age, lasting harm, and public protection—within discretion up to statutory max | Court held sentence was not an abuse of discretion and not manifestly unreasonable; affirmed judgment of sentence |
| Whether remand for resentencing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(3) is required | Appellant requested vacatur and remand as the sentence exceeded guideline range and was unreasonable | Trial court argued it considered PSI and factors, and the statutory max is permissible | Court declined to vacate or remand, concluding sentence was reasonable under the applicable standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discretionary‑sentencing challenges characterized)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (four‑part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (substantial‑question standard)
- Commonwealth v. Guth, 735 A.2d 709 (Pa. Super. 1999) (above‑guidelines/unreasonable sentencing raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. 2005) (excessive sentence claim where court focused on offense gravity)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 828 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard that sentencing is vested in trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion definition; unreasonableness standard)
- Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, 923 A.2d 1111 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing guidelines are advisory)
- Commonwealth v. Hoch, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (factors court should consider when deviating from guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that court considered PSI and appropriate factors)
- Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming statutory‑maximum sentence after balanced consideration)