Com. v. Kritzar, R.
Com. v. Kritzar, R. No. 1173 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- On May 28, 2014, a multi-vehicle collision on westbound Route 22 in Lehigh County resulted in the death of Nathan Warke, the sole occupant of a Jeep crushed between a tractor-trailer and a Ford F-750 box truck driven by Robert J. Kritzar.
- Investigators found Kritzar’s BAC was .22 from a lawful blood draw taken at the hospital; evidence in the truck included an open whiskey bottle and a beer can. Kritzar admitted he struck the Jeep after seeing brake lights and that both vehicles then hit the tractor-trailer.
- Vehicle data download showed Kritzar’s truck traveling ~69 mph three seconds before impact with throttle at 100%, throttle reduced one second later, and impact occurring two seconds after the throttle reduction; brakes were engaged after the initial impact.
- Kritzar, a second-time DUI offender, entered an open guilty plea to multiple counts including homicide by vehicle while DUI and related offenses; no plea agreement as to sentence was made. The court informed him the homicide-by-vehicle-while-DUI count carried a 3-year mandatory minimum and up to 10 years maximum.
- At sentencing (March 7, 2016) the court reviewed the PSI, victim impact statements, medical and mental-health records, victim-family testimony, and letters for the defendant; it imposed an aggregate sentence of 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment followed by 5 years’ supervised probation.
- Kritzar filed a post-sentence motion and appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence at the statutory maximum and failing to consider mitigating factors and statutory sentencing criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence at the statutory maximum and failing to consider mitigating/statutory factors | Commonwealth argued the sentence was supported by the facts (high BAC, commercial vehicle, second DUI, fatality) and that the court properly considered the PSI and victim impact | Kritzar argued the sentence (maximum) was excessive, more than double guideline range, the court failed to state adequate reasons or consider mitigating factors (remorse, acceptance, difficult life) | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Record shows court reviewed the PSI, considered factors, credited acceptance by running sentences concurrently, and gave adequate on-the-record reasons for the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements and waiver for discretionary sentencing claims)
- Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (preservation rules for sentencing challenges)
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (record-as-a-whole must reflect consideration of statutory factors; reasons for guideline deviation)
- Provenzano v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 148 (Pa. Super. 2012) (limitations on appellate review of whether a substantial question is presented)
- Paul v. Commonwealth, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial-question requirement evaluated case-by-case)
- Raven v. Commonwealth, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to consider mitigating factors raises a substantial question)
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentencing court must consider appropriate factors; raises substantial question when it does not)
- Downing v. Commonwealth, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PSI creates a presumption that the court was aware of and considered relevant sentencing information)