Com. v. Figuereo, K.
Com. v. Figuereo, K. No. 282 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Kain H. Figuereo was convicted but mentally ill after a non-jury trial of: false alarm to public safety, false reports, simple assault, and criminal mischief arising from two incidents in 2011 (bomb threat/false reports) and 2012 (knife attack on neighbor's car).
- The incidents occurred years before trial; delays were due to the appellant's intermittent mental health treatment and competency restorations.
- At trial appellant testified he experienced hallucinations (attributing episodes to use of "bath salts" and medication issues) and was not taking prescribed medications at times; mental health reports diagnosed schizoaffective disorder.
- At sentencing the court heard victim impact testimony describing lasting PTSD and life disruption, and testimony from a mental-health counselor about the appellant's condition and response to medication.
- The court applied a deadly-weapon enhancement, sentenced appellant in the aggravated guideline range to an aggregate term of 17 to 28 months' incarceration (plus probation), and denied mitigation claims.
- On direct appeal appellant challenged only the discretionary aspects of sentencing, arguing the court failed to properly consider his mental illness and other mitigating factors before imposing an aggravated-range sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence (aggravated-range) was an abuse of discretion | Commonwealth: sentence appropriate given offense gravity, weapon use, victim impact, community protection | Figuereo: court failed to consider his mental illness and mitigating factors and improperly imposed aggravated-range sentence for misdemeanors with no prior record | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered PSI, mental-health evidence, victim impact, and explained reasons for departure |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discretionary sentencing challenge explained)
- Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural steps to reach discretionary-sentencing claim on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2013) (substantial-question standard for sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (aggravated-range sentence without considering mitigation raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when court reviews PSI, it is presumed to have considered defendant's character and mitigation)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court must place reasons for sentence on record but need not give lengthy discourse)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (sentencing considerations and use of PSI)