Com. v. Lane, A.
1232 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Adam Russell Lane pleaded guilty (Feb. 6, 2015) to statutory sexual assault, unlawful contact with a minor, and corruption of minors for conduct involving a second minor between Sept. 1, 2013 and Apr. 30, 2014. He previously pleaded guilty (Apr. 4, 2014) to corruption of minors arising from sexual intercourse with a different minor between Sept. 1, 2012 and Apr. 3, 2013.
- A pre-sentence investigation and Sexual Offender’s Assessment Board review (which did not classify Lane as a sexually violent predator) preceded sentencing.
- On June 10, 2015 the trial court imposed consecutive terms (aggregate 48 to 132 months), with an amended order on registration entered June 18, 2015. Post-sentence motion was denied and Lane appealed.
- Lane raised challenges to: (1) the court’s consideration of his 2014 conviction at sentencing in the later case; (2) alleged double jeopardy/double punishment; (3) whether minima at the cusp of standard/aggravated ranges were actually aggravated sentences; (4) alleged abuse of discretion for imposing consecutive sentences without adequate reasons; and (5) constitutionality of the Rule 2119(f)/§9781(b) substantial-question requirement.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding consideration of the prior conviction permissible, no double jeopardy, the sentences were standard-range as announced, the sentencing court gave valid reasons supported by the PSI and record, and the appellate-substantial-question regime constitutional under precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly treated Lane as a recidivist by considering his April 2014 conviction when sentencing for later offenses | Court may consider prior convictions not included in prior-record score; such consideration is appropriate to assess culpability and protection of public | Lane argued the 2014 conviction shouldn’t be considered because it was unsentenced at times relevant to the later conduct and was not in his prior-record score | Court held consideration was permissible under Pa. Sentencing Guideline §303.5(d) and precedent (no abuse of discretion) |
| Double jeopardy / multiple punishment claim | N/A (Commonwealth opposed) | Lane asserted he was being punished again for the prior offense because the court referenced prior conduct when sentencing | Court rejected claim: sentencing considered prior conviction as a factor but imposed sentence only on the three instant convictions; no double jeopardy violation |
| Whether minima at cusp of standard/aggravated ranges constituted aggravated sentences | N/A | Lane argued minima fell at start of aggravated range, so sentences were aggravated and required different justification | Court found trial court expressly announced intent to impose standard-range sentences; therefore sentences were standard-range and Lopez precedent controls |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by imposing consecutive sentences at the cusp without valid reasons on the record | N/A | Lane claimed court failed to provide adequate reasons for consecutive, near-cusp sentences | Court deemed issue waived (not raised below) and, on merits, held trial court gave valid, record-supported reasons (PSI, seriousness, repeat conduct) |
| Constitutionality of Rule 2119(f)/§9781(b) (substantial-question requirement) | Commonwealth relied on binding precedent upholding §9781(b) as a reasonable regulation of the appellate right | Lane argued the allowance-of-appeal/constitutional right to appeal is infringed by making discretionary-aspect review contingent on a substantial-question showing | Court followed McFarlin and related precedent: §9781(b) and Rule 2119(f) are constitutional and do not violate PA Const. art. V §9 |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kraft, 737 A.2d 755 (Pa. Super. 1999) (prior convictions not counted in prior-record score may nonetheless be considered at sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 621 A.2d 990 (Pa. 1993) (prior offense not resulting in conviction before commission of later offense cannot be included in prior-record score under guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Jarowecki, 985 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2009) (discussion of recidivist philosophy and legislative discretion in sentencing schemes)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 627 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 1993) (sentence at cusp of standard/aggravated ranges is treated as aggravated unless court expressly states intent to impose a standard sentence)
- Commonwealth v. McFarlin, 587 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 1991) (§9781(b) is a reasonable regulation of the right to appeal; allowance-of-appeal requirement constitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing; presumption that trial court considered PSI and relevant factors)
- Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court must state valid, record-supported reasons for sentence and those will be upheld absent abuse of discretion)