Com. v. Martinez-DeJesus, W.
2103 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- On Dec. 19, 2014, Martinez-DeJesus attacked and threatened to kill a taxi driver over a fare dispute, took items from the cab, and the victim suffered lasting injuries and financial impact.
- Commonwealth charged Martinez-DeJesus with one count of robbery (Information filed Apr. 29, 2015).
- On July 21, 2015, Martinez-DeJesus entered a nolo contendere plea to robbery.
- Sentencing (Sept. 28, 2015): court imposed 5 to 10 years’ incarceration (above the aggravated guideline range), plus fines, costs, and restitution.
- Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and appeal contesting the discretionary aspects of the sentence, arguing the court failed to provide adequate reasons for an upward departure.
- The trial court explained on the record that the violent, senseless brutality and the victim’s lasting harm justified a sentence above the guidelines; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence (above aggravated guideline range) was an abuse of discretion/unreasonable under 42 Pa.C.S. §9781(c)(3) | Commonwealth: sentence justified by victim impact, nature/seriousness of offense, and protection of the public | Martinez-DeJesus: sentencing court failed to state adequate reasons for upward departure; sentence manifestly excessive | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court gave adequate on-the-record reasons (brutality, victim impact, public protection) and properly considered guidelines as advisory |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-pronged test for reviewability of discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to state reasons for departure can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (standards for appellate review of alleged unreasonable sentences; factors courts must consider)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory; courts may deviate based on protection of public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitation needs)