Com. v. Kaszuba, H.
896 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Holly A. Kaszuba pleaded guilty on December 15, 2015 to corruption of minors (18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(i)).
- On May 3, 2016, the trial court sentenced Kaszuba to 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment (a minimum sentence above the standard range) followed by two years’ probation; sentence was later clarified to run consecutively to an unrelated sentence.
- Kaszuba filed a post-sentence motion the day of sentencing seeking a minimum sentence within the standard range based on alleged completion of drug rehabilitation; the court denied it on May 10, 2016.
- Kaszuba timely appealed and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement raising discretionary-sentencing claims that she had not raised at sentencing or in the post-sentence motion.
- The Superior Court addressed whether it could reach the discretionary-sentencing claims given preservation requirements and the four-part Colon test for such appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion | Kaszuba: sentence was inappropriately harsh and above standard range | Commonwealth: issue waived for failure to preserve at sentencing/post-sentence motion | Waived for failure to preserve; court declined to reach merits |
| Whether court failed to state sufficient reasons for aggravated sentence | Kaszuba: court did not state adequate on-the-record reasons for exceeding standard range | Commonwealth: same preservation defense; issue not preserved | Waived for failure to preserve; court declined to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to appeal as of right)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (four-part test to determine appellate review of discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary-sentencing objections are waived if not raised at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a Rule 1925(b) statement cannot cure failure to preserve an issue at sentencing)