Com. v. Howarth, D., Com. v. Howarth, D. No. 839 EDA 2016

On October 19, 2014, Daniel Howarth and co-defendants went to William Kitcherman's residence; an altercation at the door/window led to the victim's stepfather, Raymond Muldowney, being punched, kicked and suffering several broken ribs and a punctured lung.
Howarth pled guilty on June 15, 2015 to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and disorderly conduct.
A Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) documented a juvenile record including prior probation, violations, substance use beginning in adolescence, and various juvenile dispositional placements and services.
Initial sentence (Nov. 25, 2015) was 30 months to 10 years on Count 1; after reconsideration (Jan. 19, 2016) the sentence was reduced to 2.5 to 5 years on Count 1 plus consecutive five years probation; Count 2 received concurrent two years probation; Counts 3–4 no further penalty.
Howarth appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and the court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (youth, lack of adult criminal record, remorse, rehabilitative needs, troubled background, guilty plea).
The trial court issued an opinion explaining it considered the PSI, the defendant's juvenile history and age, the brutal nature of the assault, compared co-defendants' roles, and that the sentence was within the guideline range and below the PSI recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence was excessive / court failed to consider mitigating factors	Howarth: court focused only on crime seriousness; failed to weigh youth, lack of adult record, remorse, rehabilitative needs, guilty plea	Trial court: considered PSI, juvenile history, age, relative roles, and injured victim's serious injuries; sentence within guideline range	No reversible error — court considered relevant factors; sentence affirmed
Whether appellant raised a substantial question for discretionary review	Howarth: challenged consideration of mitigating factors and claimed sentence manifestly excessive	Commonwealth: inadequate consideration claims typically do not present substantial question	Court: claim does not raise substantial question; even if it did, no abuse of discretion shown

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (discretionary aspects of sentencing not reviewable as of right)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing review and what constitutes a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (substantial question requires colorable argument that sentence conflicts with Sentencing Code or fundamental norms)
Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (inadequate consideration of mitigating factors generally does not present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (sentencing court with PSI is presumed to have considered defendant's character and mitigating factors)
Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (claims about failure to consider rehabilitative needs/age do not necessarily present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Mobley, 581 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (same principle regarding mitigating factors and manifest excessiveness)
Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (appellate deference to sentencing court's discretion and evaluation of defendant's character)
Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (a within-guidelines sentence considered appropriate when PSI was reviewed)