Com. v. Lomax, E., 908 WDA 2021

Defendant Eric W. Lomax Jr. entered guilty pleas in three Erie County dockets: a 2015 unlawful delivery (heroin) matter, and two 2019 matters involving possession of a loaded firearm, burglary conspiracy, and intimidation of victims.
On June 30, 2020 the court revoked probation on the 2015 docket (15–30 months) and imposed consecutive standard-range terms on the 2019 dockets (including 42–84 months and multiple concurrent standard-range sentences), all consecutive to one another.
Lomax attempted post-sentence motions but appeals were initially dismissed for lack of briefing; trial court later granted nunc pro tunc relief and Lomax filed a direct appeal raising one claim.
Lomax’s sole appellate claim: the trial court cut short his right of allocution at sentencing, producing manifestly excessive and unreasonable sentences because the court could not consider mitigating information he would have offered.
Record shows Lomax submitted a letter that the judge read, was invited to speak on the record (and did so, apologizing and citing his mother’s death), and the judge expressly stated he had considered the letter, PSI, counsel’s statements, and parole agent’s input.
The Superior Court held there was no curtailed allocution, no failure to consider statutory sentencing factors, and no abuse of discretion; judgments of sentence were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentences are manifestly excessive because the trial court curtailed Lomax's right of allocution and therefore could not consider mitigating factors	Lomax: court cut off his allocution, preventing full presentation of mitigating information and producing unreasonable sentences	Commonwealth / Trial court: Lomax submitted a letter, was permitted to speak on the record, apologized and explained mitigation; judge considered letter, PSI, counsel, and parole agent; no contemporaneous objection	Affirmed: allocution was adequate, judge considered required factors, no abuse of discretion and sentences (standard-range, consecutive) upheld

Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307 (Pa. Super. 2019) (discretionary-aspect-of-sentencing preservation and review standards)
Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2018) (preservation rules for discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Naranjo, 53 A.3d 66 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements for presenting a substantial question on discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Maneval, 688 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 1997) (substantial-question guidance for sentencing appeals)
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard in sentencing reviews)
Commonwealth v. Roden, 730 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 1999) (failure to consider mandatory sentencing factors can present a substantial question)