Com. v. Guglielmo, M.
Com. v. Guglielmo, M. No. 1064 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Appellant Madeline Guglielmo pled guilty in October 2013 to theft by deception and related charges in two dockets for schemes targeting an elderly family friend and issuing an NSF check for her mother’s burial.
- Presentence psychiatric evaluation and PSI were prepared; sentencing occurred November 19, 2013.
- Court sentenced at Docket No. 5109-2013 to consecutive terms (theft 2–4 years; criminal use of communication facility 1–2 years + 3 years probation; access device fraud 1–2 years + 2 years probation) and at Docket No. 5484-2013 to 1–2 years concurrent; aggregate 4–8 years imprisonment plus 5 years probation.
- Restitution ordered: $137,302.31 (Docket 5109) and $1,328.05 (Docket 5484), totaling $138,630.36.
- Guglielmo filed post-sentence motions and appeals; initial appeal was quashed as interlocutory, remanded for amended post-sentence motion, denied, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (total confinement / severity) | N/A (Commonwealth sought serious sentence) | Guglielmo: sentence is harsh/excessive; court failed to consider 42 Pa.C.S. § 9725 factors and her mitigation, risk, and treatment needs | Court: No abuse of discretion—trial court considered PSI, psychiatric eval, victim impact, prior similar conduct, probation status, and explained aggravators; sentence affirmed |
| Legality of restitution order under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(2) | N/A | Guglielmo: court failed to specify amount and method of restitution, and failed to consider extent of injury and preexisting orders; relied on Smith for claim | Court: Distinguishable from Smith—amounts were stated at sentencing, restitution on one docket reduced due to family payments, lump-sum payment was implicitly ordered; restitution order lawful and affirmed |
| Consecutive sentencing | N/A | Guglielmo: consecutive terms improper / excessive aggregate | Court: No substantial question raised; consecutive sentences justified and not unduly harsh in context; affirmed |
| Procedural sufficiency of appellate process (Anders filing / interlocutory appeal) | N/A | Appellate counsel initially filed Anders; appeal quashed for interlocutory defect; remand allowed amended post-sentence motion | Court followed remand; procedural posture resolved and merits addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoch v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural requirements for discretionary-sentencing appeals)
- Tuladziecki v. Commonwealth, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (requirement to include statement of reasons under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f))
- Ventura v. Commonwealth, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (what constitutes a substantial question for sentencing review)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2008) (restitution order illegal where court failed to set amount and method at sentencing)
- Austin v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentences raise substantial question only in extreme circumstances)