Com. v. Gadd, C.
Com. v. Gadd, C. No. 49 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Dropbox reported a user to NCMEC after suspicious files were found; NCMEC forwarded identifying information to the Pennsylvania Attorney General, which identified Cody Gadd as the Dropbox account owner.
- Over 1,000 videos/images of probable child pornography were recovered from the account; Commonwealth charged Gadd with ten counts of possession of child pornography and one count of criminal use of a communications facility; Gadd pleaded guilty to ten possession counts.
- Court accepted plea, ordered a PSI, and sentenced Gadd to an aggregate 5 to 10 years' incarceration plus 10 years probation; Gadd filed a post-sentence motion which was denied by operation of law, then appealed.
- On appeal Gadd challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence, arguing (1) the court improperly imposed multiple consecutive sentences and (2) the court relied on factors already accounted for in the offense gravity score (i.e., double-counting the young ages of victims).
- The Superior Court found technical compliance with preservation and Rule 2119(f) requirements, rejected the consecutive-sentences argument as not raising a substantial question, but treated the double-counting claim as a substantial question and reviewed it on the merits.
- On the merits the court concluded the sentencing judge considered Gadd’s minimization of his conduct, his continued use of adult pornography, witness testimony, and the PSI — not merely impermissible or duplicative factors — and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were excessive | Commonwealth: sentencing court within discretion to order consecutive terms | Gadd: consecutive sentences were unreasonable and excessive | Court: no substantial question; consecutive sentences permissible absent extreme circumstances; claim fails |
| Whether court double-counted offense gravity factors | Commonwealth: court properly considered defendant's conduct and rehab prospects beyond OGS | Gadd: sentencing court relied on victim age and severity already included in offense gravity score (double-counting) | Court: substantial question raised; on the merits no abuse of discretion — court considered defendant's minimization, treatment issues, PSI and witness testimony, not impermissible double-counting |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discretionary-sentence challenges treated as petitions for permission to appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (defendant must raise substantial question to review discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive sentences rarely raise a substantial question absent extreme aggregate harshness)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant not entitled to a "volume discount" by running sentences concurrently)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (allegation of double-counting offense factors can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Hallock, 603 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 1992) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant factors)