Com. v. Marrero, L., 611 EDA 2016

In April 2015, Lorraine Marrero, while caring for her two children, squeezed her 4‑month‑old son V. for about a minute during a "fit of rage." She did not seek immediate medical care.
On May 23, 2015, V. was taken to Sacred Heart Hospital for bronchitis; x‑rays revealed two healing right‑side rib fractures, prompting further medical evaluation and a Child Advocacy Center exam.
Marrero gave a written statement to police, has a history of mental‑health issues, and had been inconsistent with medication. She was charged with aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(8)) and endangering the welfare of children; the latter was not prosecuted per the plea agreement.
On December 8, 2015, Marrero entered an open guilty plea to aggravated assault with an agreement that the Commonwealth would not pursue the child‑endangerment charge and that the minimum sentence would not exceed 36 months; sentencing was deferred for a PSI.
On January 22, 2016, after reviewing the PSI, the trial court sentenced Marrero to 3 to 10 years’ imprisonment (above applicable guideline ranges). Marrero filed a motion to reconsider, appealed, and raised a discretionary‑sentencing challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence above the sentencing guidelines	Marrero argued the minimum should have been within the standard (6–14 months) or aggravated (20 months) guideline ranges; court failed to consider mitigating factors and § 9721(b)/§ 9781(c)/(d) factors and did not adequately explain deviation	Trial court relied on position of trust, harm to her child, lack of full responsibility until sentencing, community risk, plea allowed departure, and review of PSI — justifying the upward departure	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court provided adequate reasons on the record and considered the PSI

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for preserving discretionary sentencing claims and defining "substantial question")
Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no automatic right to appeal discretionary aspects of sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 589 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 1991) (factors sentencing court should consider: prior record, age, personal characteristics, rehabilitation potential)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (PSI presumed to inform the sentencing court of relevant defendant information)
Commonwealth v. Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2005) (failure to provide sufficient reasons for sentence outside guidelines raises a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (plurality) (requirement that court state reasons for sentence on the record)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 982 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2009) (open plea does not preclude challenge to discretionary sentencing)