Com. v. Hall, E.
211 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Eric Hall pled open guilty (9/24/13) to retail theft and conspiracy to commit retail theft for a theft on 5/23/13.
- Hall failed to remain for his initially scheduled sentencing (2/21/14) and absconded for over two years; a bench warrant issued and he was apprehended later.
- On 10/20/16 the court imposed consecutive standard-range sentences: 18 months to 7 years on each count (aggregate 3 to 14 years).
- Hall filed a timely post-sentence motion arguing the sentence was excessive and that the court failed to consider mitigating factors (limited intellectual ability, education, rehabilitation needs).
- The court denied relief; Hall appealed, raising a discretionary-sentencing challenge claiming the sentence exceeded guidelines and violated Section 9721(b) considerations.
- The Superior Court reviewed the record, including the PSI and sentencing hearing, and affirmed the judgment of sentence on 9/26/17.
Issues
| Issue | Hall's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate 3–14 year sentence was unreasonable/excessive because the court failed to consider Hall's individual characteristics (limited intellect, education, rehabilitation needs) and exceeded aggravated guideline range | The sentence was excessive, violated fundamental norms, and the court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and Hall’s rehabilitative needs under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) | The discretionary aspects claim is not cognizable absent a substantial question and/or waiver for not specifically challenging consecutiveness; court properly considered factors and relied on PSI and sentencing record | No reversible error. Court considered PSI, letters, counsel’s argument, criminal history, violations, absconding, and risk of reoffense; sentencing discretion not abused and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodge v. Commonwealth, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standards for presenting a substantial question in discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Glass v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant information)
- Swope v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim tied to failure to consider mitigating factors raises a substantial question)