Com. v. Henderson, W., Com. v. Henderson, W. No. 3064 EDA 2016

On May 4, 2015, William Eugene Henderson pointed a starter pistol at another motorist (Keith Hadfield) on I‑95, fired one round through the passenger window, and was stopped by police who recovered the gun; Henderson admitted firing because the victim had cut him off.
Henderson pled guilty to possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), simple assault, two counts of recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and two counts of summary harassment.
At sentencing (Feb. 19, 2016) the court imposed 11½ to 23 months’ incarceration for PIC (above the aggravated guideline range) plus 2 years’ probation; concurrent 2‑year probation terms for simple assault and REAP; no additional penalty for harassment.
Henderson filed a post‑sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of the PIC sentence (arguing the court failed to give weight to mitigating factors and improperly relied on unrelated juvenile matters), which was denied; he appealed.
The Superior Court reviewed whether Henderson presented a substantial question and whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an aggravated‑range (above guidelines) sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Henderson)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a PIC sentence above the aggravated guidelines	Court should be affirmed: sentencing court considered statutory factors and record, emphasizing public protection and gravity of conduct	Court failed to weigh mitigating factors (prompt cooperation, confession, acceptance of responsibility); relied on speculative juvenile case and double‑counted factors	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered mitigating factors but reasonably weighed seriousness, victim/community danger, and criminal history

Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (four‑part test and standards for discretionary sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (definition of substantial question for sentencing appeals)
Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (claim that aggravated sentence imposed without considering mitigating circumstances raises substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 673 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)
Grady v. Frito–Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (clarification on abuse of discretion standard)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentences outside sentencing guidelines)