Com. v. Garcia, J.
3050 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Juan Carlos Garcia pled open guilty to three counts of first-degree robbery and three counts of conspiracy to commit robbery for armed robberies at three restaurants in Oct–Nov 2013; he used a BB gun that appeared real and pointed it at victims.
- Plea included agreement to testify against co-defendant; Commonwealth nolle prossed hundreds of other charges.
- At sentencing (after PSI), court imposed aggregate sentence of 20–40 years’ incarceration plus 20 years’ probation (multiple consecutive and concurrent terms).
- Garcia filed a post-sentence motion arguing his sentence exceeded the guidelines and the court failed to consider mitigating factors; the motion was denied and he appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Garcia preserved discretionary sentencing claims and whether any preserved claims raised a substantial question of unreasonableness under the Sentencing Code.
- The court affirmed, finding (1) several arguments were waived for failure to raise them below, (2) the sentencing court considered relevant factors (including PSI and Garcia’s record/cooperation), and (3) even on the merits the sentence was not unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was unreasonable/outside guidelines | Garcia: individual and aggregate terms far exceed aggravated guideline ranges; consecutive terms make aggregate sentence excessive | Commonwealth/Sentencing Ct: sentence reflects seriousness, violence, prior record, and protects public; court considered PSI and mitigation | Affirmed — claim largely waived; court sufficiently considered factors and sentence not unreasonable |
| Whether court failed to consider factors in 42 Pa.C.S. §9721(b) | Garcia: court ignored mitigating factors (childhood, age, rehabilitation) and focused only on offense gravity | Sentencing Ct: court reviewed PSI, considered age and mitigating info, credited cooperation, and explained basis for sentence | Affirmed — claim waived in part; where considered, record shows court weighed factors; no relief |
| Whether imposition of consecutive sentences raises substantial question | Garcia: consecutive terms produce unduly harsh aggregate sentence | Commonwealth: trial court has discretion to run sentences consecutive or concurrent; only extreme cases present substantial question | Affirmed — generic challenge fails; Garcia did not preserve consecutive-sentence challenge; not an extreme case |
| Whether conspiracy convictions and multiple inchoate counts were improperly sentenced | Garcia: (implied) multiple conspiracy counts problematic | Commonwealth: each conspiracy culminated in a discrete robbery; sentencing proper | Affirmed — sentence does not violate statutory prohibition on multiple punishments where each conspiracy resulted in a distinct underlying offense (per Jacobs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sets standard for appellate "unreasonableness" review of sentences outside guidelines)
- Mouzon v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requires Rule 2119(f) reasons to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing claims)
- Tirado v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (open guilty pleas preserve right to challenge discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Lutes v. Commonwealth, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (sentencing challenges based on excessiveness are discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Dodge v. Commonwealth, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (degree of violence and financial loss inform reasonableness)
- Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (preserving objections at sentencing or in post-sentence motion required)
- Mann v. Commonwealth, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to raise sentencing objections preserves waiver)
- Phillips v. Commonwealth, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (purpose of separate Rule 2119(f) statement)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 562 A.2d 1385 (Pa. Super. 1989) (limits on challenges to trial court’s sentencing evaluation)
- Cruz-Centeno v. Commonwealth, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 1995) (allegation that court failed to consider factors generally does not raise substantial question)
- Urrutia v. Commonwealth, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 1995) (same)
- Kane v. Commonwealth, 10 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2010) (arguments about §9721(b) considerations generally do not present substantial question)
- Pass v. Commonwealth, 914 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discretion to impose consecutive sentences; ordinary challenge not a substantial question)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive sentences present substantial question only in extreme cases)
- Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 39 A.3d 977 (Pa. 2012) (multiple conspiracy counts permissible where each conspiracy culminated in a discrete substantive offense)