Com. v. Harrington, D., Com. v. Harrington, D. No. 2211 EDA 2015

On May 14, 2014, David Harrington shot his then-wife multiple times in the face and chest in their basement and later shot Derrick Morris in the eye; both victims survived with serious injuries.
After the shootings Harrington discarded the gun, surrendered at a police station, and gave a full statement.
Harrington pled guilty to multiple counts including two counts each of criminal attempt—murder, aggravated assault, PIC, one count of unlawful restraint, three VUFA violations, and terroristic threats.
The sentencing court imposed consecutive 12½–25 year terms on each attempted-murder conviction, plus additional concurrent and consecutive terms, producing an aggregate sentence of 26–52 years.
Harrington challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence, arguing the court failed adequately to consider his mental-health history and rehabilitative needs and that the aggregate term was effectively a life sentence given his age.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding Harrington failed to raise a substantial question and that the sentence—although consecutive and lengthy—fell below the guideline mitigating range and was not manifestly unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court abused discretion by failing to adequately consider rehabilitative needs/mental-health history under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)	Harrington: court did not afford adequate consideration to his mental-health history and rehabilitative needs; a shorter term would allow for treatment and rehabilitation	Commonwealth: sentencing court considered mitigating factors; Harrington’s claim was not preserved as a distinct challenge beyond asserting excessiveness due to age	Court: claim preserved only as age/excessiveness; failed to raise a substantial question because sentence was below mitigating guideline range and not manifestly unreasonable
Whether the aggregate sentence was a de facto life sentence and therefore contrary to fundamental sentencing norms	Harrington: consecutive terms (26–52 years) at age 52 effectively amount to a life sentence and deny meaningful rehabilitative prospect	Commonwealth: no entitlement to discount for age or multiple convictions; consecutive sentences permissible; court considered factors	Court: rejected argument; age does not entitle defendant to a shorter sentence; no substantial question presented; affirmed sentence

Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing and four-part test for appellate review)
Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary-sentencing challenges are not reviewable as of right)
Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (what constitutes a substantial question for sentencing review)
Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant not entitled to a "volume discount"—concurrent sentences are not required for multiple crimes)