Com. v. Johnson, J., 420 WDA 2016

Justin R. Johnson pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver (PWID), and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person after the Commonwealth nolle prossed other counts.
Sentencing (June 30, 2015): 40–80 months for PWID, 60–120 months for prohibited-firearm possession to run consecutively, and 3 years probation for possession of a controlled substance to run consecutively — aggregate 100–200 months plus 3 years probation.
Johnson did not file a direct appeal; he sought PCRA relief claiming ineffective assistance and asked to reinstate his post-sentence and direct-appeal rights; the PCRA court granted relief.
After reinstatement, Johnson filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration and then appealed, raising discretionary-sentencing challenges focused on the imposition of consecutive sentences and adequacy of the court’s contemporaneous reasons.
The trial court explained its reasons on the record, citing Johnson’s extensive criminal history, repeated drug sales on separate dates, possession of a loaded gun, community protection, and rehabilitative concerns; it imposed standard-range sentences.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion / manifestly excessive	Consecutive sentences were excessive given mitigating factors (age, past good deeds, schooling, addiction, acceptance of responsibility)	Sentencing court reasonably exercised discretion given criminal history, separate offense dates, and public safety concerns	No abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed
Whether trial court failed to give legally sufficient contemporaneous statement for consecutive sentencing	Court’s stated predicate (offenses occurred at different times) was factually inaccurate and insufficient	Court provided adequate on-the-record reasons referencing separate incidents and defendant’s record	Contemporaneous statement adequate; reasons sufficient
Whether sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors	Court did not sufficiently weigh mitigation to justify consecutive sentences	Court considered mitigation but reasonably found aggravating history outweighed it	No reversible error; consideration was adequate
Whether the sentence was outside guideline reasons and thus required extra explanation	Imposition of consecutive terms without detailed rationale violated sentencing rules	Sentence was within/near guideline ranges and court explained rationale on record	No substantial question; sentence appropriate under Sentencing Code

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (preservation and statement requirements for sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2013) (what constitutes a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690 (Pa. Super. 2013) (limitations on broad excessiveness claims)
Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (consecutive-sentences claim alone may not present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Monohan, 860 A.2d 180 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need for reasons where sentence is outside guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Curran, 932 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2007) (requirement of contemporaneous statement when sentencing outside guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (inadequate consideration of mitigation normally not a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Ratushny, 17 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2011) (same)
Commonwealth v. Ladamus, 896 A.2d 592 (Pa. Super. 2006) (mitigation claims generally not reviewable absent other factors)
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consecutive sentences + failure to consider mitigation can present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of sentencing discretion)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (within-guideline sentences are presumed appropriate)

Judgment of sentence affirmed.