Com. v. Lellock, R.
Com. v. Lellock, R. No. 1269 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Robert Lellock, a Pittsburgh School Police Officer, was convicted of multiple sexual offenses for abusing four male students (minors) by taking them from class, assaulting them in a janitor’s closet, and using threats to silence them.
- Jury convicted Lellock on 13 counts (various offenses including IDSI, indecent assault, corruption of minors, endangering welfare, and criminal solicitation); convicted July 29, 2013.
- At initial sentencing (Oct. 22, 2013) court designated Lellock a Sexually Violent Predator and imposed an aggregate 32–64 year term, which included two then-mandatory minimums of 10–20 years.
- Superior Court vacated those mandatory-minimum portions after Wolfe struck down the mandatory scheme, and remanded for resentencing on the IDSI counts.
- At resentencing (July 21, 2016) the trial court, acknowledging review of the PSI and sentencing memoranda, re-imposed an aggregate 32–64 year term (statutory maximums on six counts, consecutive) while declining additional penalties on the other seven convictions.
- Lellock appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to state adequate reasons on the record for deviating above the guidelines and (2) the aggregate consecutive sentence was manifestly excessive and failed to account for rehabilitation and individualized sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lellock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the sentencing court state adequate reasons on the record under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)? | The court reviewed PSI and memoranda and incorporated prior on-the-record findings; that satisfies § 9721(b). | The court failed to discuss defendant’s personal history on the record and therefore reasons are insufficient. | Court affirmed: review of PSI and incorporation of earlier remarks satisfied the on-the-record reasons requirement. |
| Was the aggregate 32–64 year consecutive sentence manifestly excessive or an abuse of discretion? | The gravity, number of victims, abuse of authority, threats, and heinousness justified statutory maximums and consecutive terms; no volume discount required. | The sentence is a de facto life term for a 48-year-old with no prior record; court ignored rehabilitative needs and guidelines. | Court affirmed: sentence not unreasonable or an abuse of discretion; trial court permissibly deviated above guidelines after weighing factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for challenging discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requirements for contemporaneous statement of reasons under § 9721)
- Commonwealth v. Hunter, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (contemporaneous statement need not be highly detailed)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PSI review presumes court considered relevant sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (principles on consideration of PSI and sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (unreasonableness relief should be rare; standard of review for sentence unreasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2004) (statutory maximum above guidelines may be affirmed where court balanced factors)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (wide latitude to impose consecutive sentences; aggregate can far exceed individual terms)
- Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant not entitled to a "volume discount" for multiple offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review: sentencing is within trial court’s discretion; abuse requires record support)