Com. v. Gillespie, D.
Com. v. Gillespie, D. No. 290 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Dwight Gillespie was convicted by jury of two counts of receiving stolen property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a)).
- Original 2014 sentence: 48–120 months at Count 11 (consecutive to an earlier state sentence) and concurrent 48–120 months at Count 13; restitution ordered; no direct appeal filed.
- Post-conviction petition reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc; Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing to correct credits, grading, and restitution allocation.
- At re-sentencing (Jan. 26, 2016) court imposed within-Guidelines terms: 30–60 months at Count 11 (with 546 days’ credit) plus consecutive 15–30 months at Count 13, and clarified restitution amounts.
- Gillespie filed a post-sentence motion arguing sentences should run concurrently; trial court denied and Gillespie appealed, arguing the consecutive sentence was manifestly excessive and based on impermissible factors.
Issues
| Issue | Gillespie's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were manifestly excessive/ based on impermissible factors | Consecutive sentences produced an excessive aggregate term and the court failed to properly consider sentencing factors (42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)) | Sentencing court properly considered Guidelines, pre-sentence report, statutory factors, and defendant's criminal history; discretion to impose consecutive terms | No substantial question shown; even if considered, no abuse of discretion—consecutive sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements to proceed on discretionary-sentencing claim on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (when consecutive within-Guidelines sentences may raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (trial court discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)