Com. v. Flores, M.
517 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- In June 2014, Milton R. Flores (age 50) sexually touched a 13-year-old girl in his girlfriend’s household (touched, pulled down pants, kissed buttocks); victim reported to her mother and police.
- Flores was charged with indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors, and corruption of minors; he had a 1994 conviction for statutory rape involving an 11-year-old.
- Flores filed a pretrial motion to avoid a 25-year mandatory minimum based on his prior conviction; the court denied that motion.
- In a plea agreement, Flores pled no-contest to all counts; the Commonwealth agreed not to seek the 25-year mandatory minimum.
- At sentencing (with PSI), the court imposed consecutive terms: 1–2 years (indecent assault), 2–4 years (unlawful contact), and 2–4 years (corruption) — aggregate 5–10 years; Flores moved to modify, claiming the sentences exceeded guideline ranges and were manifestly excessive.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Flores preserved his discretionary-sentencing challenge, a substantial question existed, and the record supported sentencing outside the guidelines due to repeat victimization and public protection concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Flores' Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate 5–10 year sentence (three consecutive terms) was manifestly excessive and unreasonable under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(3) | Sentence was excessive: one term hit statutory maximum; two terms exceeded guideline ranges; court ignored rehabilitation and mitigating factors and improperly considered plea terms | Court considered guidelines, PSI, prior similar conviction, repeat victimization, need to protect public and seriousness of offense; sentencing within discretion | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; record shows consideration of relevant factors and support for sentencing outside guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (framework for reviewing sentences outside guidelines and ‘‘unreasonableness’’ inquiry)
- Mouzon v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requirement to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement when challenging discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Stewart v. Commonwealth, 867 A.2d 589 (Pa. Super. 2005) (substantial question exists where court may have considered improper factors in imposing aggravated-range sentence)
- Gonzalez-DeJesus v. Commonwealth, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 2010) (challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences generally does not raise a substantial question)