Com. v. Harrigan, J.
2798 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Jacqueline Harrigan pleaded guilty to third-degree murder as an accomplice for a shooting that killed the father of a man allegedly involved in a drug-related theft; she testified for the Commonwealth as part of plea bargains in this and a related homicide case.
- The killing occurred while Harrigan was out on bail for involvement in another homicide (hindering apprehension related to William McRae’s murder of Brandon Fraser); Harrigan had assisted McRae and delivered a shell casing from the murder weapon.
- Harrigan was sentenced on June 28, 2016 to 10–40 years for the third-degree murder conviction and 3–12 months (concurrent) for hindering; her co-defendant Kaylynn Bunnell received 10–40 years then had her maximum reduced to 25 years on reconsideration.
- Harrigan filed a post-sentence motion and timely appealed, arguing her sentence was manifestly unreasonable and disparate compared to Bunnell’s reduced sentence given mitigating distinctions (cooperation, lesser role, abuse history, rehabilitation in custody).
- The trial court explained its sentencing: considered mitigating factors (clean record, cooperation, testimony) but emphasized aggravating factors—Harrigan’s integral role in both homicides and that she committed the offense while on bail—resulting in a sentence within the standard guideline range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrigan’s sentence is an abuse of discretion / manifestly unreasonable | Harrigan: sentence is excessive and disparate vs co-defendant; mitigating factors (cooperation, lesser role, abuse history) justify lower minimum | Commonwealth / trial court: sentence is within guideline range; aggravating factors (integral participation, committed crime on bail, involvement in another homicide) justify sentence | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentence within guideline range and court adequately explained reasons for sentencing differentials |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (four-part test to invoke appellate jurisdiction for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Canfield, 639 A.2d 46 (Pa. Super. 1994) (disparity between co-defendant sentences can raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing; abuse of discretion defined)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court must state individualized reasons when sentencing co-defendants differently)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (overruling aspects of prior co-defendant sentencing precedent)