Com. v. Litz, M.
Com. v. Litz, M. No. 516 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- On July 18, 2014, Mitchell C. Litz, while driving under the influence, caused a collision, fled the scene leaving an injured 12-year-old passenger, and was later arrested with BAC readings of .299 and .27.
- Litz pled guilty on January 6, 2016 to aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI (Count One), accidents involving death or personal injury (Count Three), highest-rate DUI (Count Six, merged), and driving with a suspended license (Count Nine).
- On March 1, 2016 the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 102 to 204 months (60–120 months on Count One; consecutive 42–84 months on Count Three), exceeding the aggravated guideline range on Count Three.
- Litz filed a motion to reconsider sentence (seeking reduction of Count Three into the guideline range), which was denied; he appealed and appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago, found substantial compliance, and proceeded to review the single preserved discretionary-sentencing claim as to Count Three.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court considered statutory factors (42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)), reasonably weighed protection of the public and gravity of offense over rehabilitation, and did not abuse discretion in sentencing above the guideline range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Litz’s sentence is manifestly excessive / improper discretionary sentence | Litz argued the court failed to properly consider rehabilitative potential, remorse, and admission of fault before sentencing above aggravated range | Trial court argued it considered PSI, sentencing code, guidelines, victim impact, prior record, and mitigation but prioritized public protection and gravity of offense | Held: No abuse of discretion; court considered §9721 factors and permissibly emphasized protection and gravity over rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking withdrawal on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania-specific Anders brief requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for raising discretionary-sentencing claims on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for sentencing abuses of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant character information)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (same presumption regarding pre-sentence reports)