237 EDA 2021
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 23, 2021Background
- On November 25, 2017, Lens Jean‑Baptiste, co‑defendant Tenny Roscoe, and Gregory Williams met for a drug sale; Williams took about one pound of marijuana and fled.
- Baptiste chased Williams; the two exchanged gunfire in a residential neighborhood; multiple bullets struck nearby houses and windows.
- Roscoe pursued Williams by car and struck him, inflicting blunt‑force trauma; Williams died days later. Baptiste did not have a license to carry a firearm.
- Baptiste pled guilty to attempted murder and to carrying a firearm without a license; he was sentenced to 10–20 years for attempted murder plus seven years probation for the firearms count.
- After post‑conviction proceedings reinstated his appeal rights, Baptiste challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence, arguing the court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and that his sentence was harsher than Roscoe’s.
- Roscoe pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and related counts and received an aggregate sentence of 9–18 years plus five years probation; Baptiste appealed the disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and imposed an excessive sentence | Baptiste: court ignored/underweighting mitigating factors (age, work history, lack of priors, rehabilitative needs, acceptance of responsibility); sentence is excessive | Commonwealth: claim attacks weight of factors, not a true failure to consider; does not present a substantial question for appellate review | Court: claim challenges sentencing weight (not omission); does not raise a substantial question — no merits review on that ground |
| Whether sentencing disparity between Baptiste and co‑defendant Roscoe lacked justification and was an abuse of discretion | Baptiste: Roscoe’s conduct (driving into Williams) caused death yet received a lesser sentence; disparity unjustified | Commonwealth: different offenses and guideline scores (attempted murder OGS higher than voluntary manslaughter), distinct factual circumstances; court gave reasons particular to Baptiste | Court: disparity presented a substantial question; on merits court did not abuse discretion — record contains particularized reasons supporting Baptiste’s longer sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2018) (discretionary sentencing claims not reviewable as of right)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (four‑part test to reach discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for appellate review of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question on sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 17 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (inadequate consideration claims may, combined with excessiveness, raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 536 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 1988) (sentencing disparity among co‑defendants must be justified)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for sentencing appeals — abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when co‑defendant sentences differ, court must give reasons particular to each defendant)