Com. v. Mack, C., Com. v. Mack, C. No. 2917 EDA 2016

On August 16, 2015, Charlie Mack drove northbound through an intersection at ~62 mph in a 35 mph zone, with a blood-alcohol level of .13, struck a Mitsubishi turning left and killed 16-year-old Alayna Velez; her mother Ruth Ann Velez survived with severe injuries.
Police crash reconstruction indicated no braking, high speed, and that impact severity was inconsistent with survivability at the measured speed; blood draw confirmed intoxication.
On June 14, 2016, Mack entered an open guilty plea to DUI, homicide by vehicle while DUI, and aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI; the DUI merged at sentencing.
On August 1, 2016, the court sentenced Mack to 5–10 years on each felony count (two counts) to run consecutively for an aggregate 10–20 years, both sentences within the standard guideline ranges; post-sentence motions were denied.
Mack appealed, arguing the consecutive sentences resulted in an excessive, effectively life, sentence given his age (over 60); the trial court relied on the presentence report and victim impact.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Mack's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive standard-range sentences created an excessive aggregate sentence	Consecutive sentences were within the court's discretion and appropriate given the deadly, violent conduct and impact on victims	The consecutive sentences produced an excessive aggregate term (effectively a life sentence given his age); court abused discretion	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences within guidelines and not manifestly unreasonable
Whether Mack was entitled to a "volume" or "seasonal" discount (concurrent sentences or leniency due to age)	No entitlement to a volume or seasonal discount; sentencing court properly considered facts and prior record	Argued he should receive concurrent sentences or leniency because offenses occurred together and he is elderly	Rejected: defendant not entitled to concurrent sentencing or a discount due to age; sentence not excessive on its face

Commonwealth v. McLaine, 150 A.3d 70 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing discretionary aspects of sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive standard-range sentences ordinarily do not raise a substantial question unless grossly excessive)
Commonwealth v. Graham, 661 A.2d 1367 (Pa. 1995) (Section 9721 grants sentencing courts discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent terms)
Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant not entitled to a "volume discount" by running sentences concurrently)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 859 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2004) (rare instance where multiple consecutive standard-range sentences raised a substantial question; limited to its facts)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing court considered presentence report and relevant facts)