Com. v. Hinton, C., III
356 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- On December 9, 2014, Charles W. Hinton III (age 22) abducted his estranged wife and their two small children during a custody exchange, while armed, and transported them from Carlisle to Shippensburg.
- Hinton pleaded guilty on September 14, 2015 to Kidnapping, Carrying a Firearm Without a License, and Simple Assault.
- On October 6, 2015 the trial court imposed guideline standard-range sentences: Kidnapping 48–120 months, Firearm 12–24 months, Assault 6–24 months, ordered to run consecutively for an aggregate 66–168 months.
- Hinton filed a post-sentence motion challenging the consecutive sentences and asserting the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs; the motion was denied.
- Hinton timely appealed, preserved the issue, and included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement arguing the consecutive terms were excessive and contrary to sentencing factors in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).
- The Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning that consecutive sentences were necessary to reflect the seriousness and terrorizing nature of the offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive standard-range sentences without proper consideration of Pennsylvania sentencing factors (rehabilitation). | Hinton: court failed to adequately consider his rehabilitative needs, youth, lack of prior record, and the crimes arose from a single episode, so sentences should run concurrent. | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: court considered the PSR, sentencing arguments, and factors; consecutive sentences were within guidelines and necessary to reflect seriousness and protect the public. | The Superior Court held no abuse of discretion; consecutive guideline sentences were justified and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamonda v. Commonwealth, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discretionary-sentencing challenges require permission to appeal)
- Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review)
- Paul v. Commonwealth, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial-question determination is case-by-case)
- Griffin v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentence may violate fundamental norms underlying sentencing process)
- Riggs v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2012) (allegation sentence violates fundamental norms raises substantial question)
- Dodge v. Commonwealth, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing; consecutive vs concurrent)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2010) (ordinarily consecutive-vs-concurrent challenges do not raise a substantial question)
- Mouzon v. Commonwealth, 828 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate court gives great weight to sentencing court’s discretion)
- Boyer v. Commonwealth, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (broad discretion in selecting permissible confinement)
- Perry v. Commonwealth, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. 2005) (requirements for asserting excessive-sentence challenge)