Com. v. Everetts, J., Com. v. Everetts, J. No. 1079 WDA 2016

Appellant Jeffrey Albert Everetts pled guilty on April 14, 2016 to identity theft, habitual offender enhancement, and false identification to law enforcement.
On June 3, 2016, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 30 to 96 months’ incarceration, relying on the presentence investigation report and Appellant’s lengthy criminal history.
Appellant filed a timely post‑sentence motion (denied), timely appealed, and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
Appellant challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence as unreasonable and manifestly excessive, arguing (1) improper imposition of consecutive terms for related counts, (2) high‑end standard‑range sentencing, and (3) the court failed to consider mitigating factors.
The Superior Court conducted the standard four‑part discretionary‑appeal threshold review and addressed whether Appellant raised a substantial question warranting merits review.
The Court affirmed, holding Appellant failed to raise a substantial question: the sentence was within the standard guideline range, no extreme circumstances justified upsetting consecutive terms, and mitigating‑factor claims were not preserved (and in any event did not present a substantial question).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether the aggregate 30–96 month sentence was unreasonable/manifestly excessive	The aggregate was unduly harsh: consecutive sentences for counts arising from the same incident and each at high end of standard range; mitigating factors were not considered	Sentence was within standard guideline ranges; no extreme circumstance shown to render consecutive sentences unduly harsh; PSR and criminal history supported sentence; mitigation claim not preserved	Affirmed: no substantial question; sentence appropriate and within guideline range

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary‑aspect sentencing review is not a right of appeal)
Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four‑part threshold test for discretionary sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2003) (substantial‑question inquiry is case‑by‑case)
Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial question exists when sentence contradicts Sentencing Code norms)
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (manifest‑excessiveness claim may raise a substantial question if tied to Sentencing Code inconsistencies)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard‑range sentences are generally appropriate under the Sentencing Code)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive sentencing challenge requires showing "extreme circumstances" to present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (failure to preserve discretionary‑sentencing claim at sentencing/post‑sentence motion waives review)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claim that court failed to consider mitigating factors generally does not raise a substantial question when PSR informed sentencing)