Com. v. McDaniel, K., Com. v. McDaniel, K. No. 1819 WDA 2015

Background

Keith McDaniel pled guilty (negotiated plea) to indecent assault, indecent exposure, corruption of minors, and endangering the welfare of a child for conduct involving an 11‑year‑old victim.
Trial court sentenced him to 11½ to 23 months, five years concurrent probation, and 15 years Megan’s Law registration; special probation conditions restricted contact with minors, computers, and required sex‑offender/mental‑health treatment.
Multiple probation review hearings documented repeated technical and substantive violations: drug use, unauthorized contact with minors (including his grandchildren and nieces/nephews), possession of a Wi‑Fi capable cell phone with photos of children and alcohol, and failure to pay financial obligations.
After being placed on electronic monitoring, McDaniel cut off his bracelet, absconded, and was found with a two‑year‑old granddaughter. Probation was revoked.
At revocation resentencing the court imposed 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment. McDaniel filed a timely motion to modify and appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive, that the court failed to consider mitigating/rehabilitative factors, and that the court relied on impermissible factors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McDaniel)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court)	Held
Whether revocation sentence of total confinement was manifestly excessive/abuse of discretion	Sentence excessive because no new crime, no proof of future danger, and court didn’t need vindication	Court emphasized repeated violations, public danger, and failed rehabilitation	Waived (not raised at sentencing/motion); claim denied when reviewed on merits
Whether court failed to consider personal history, character, rehabilitative needs under §9721(b)	Court ignored mental‑health/substance history, guilty plea, and argued violations were technical	Court had presided over plea, sentencing, and reviews; considered history and multiple violations showing refusal to rehabilitate and danger	No merit—court sufficiently considered these factors
Whether court relied on impermissible factors at sentencing (PFAs, number of children)	Reliance on alleged four PFAs and social history (ten children vs. nine) improperly influenced sentence	Trial court’s references were supported by record or were passing and did not affect sentence; appellant failed to include PSI in record to prove dismissal of PFAs	Claim waived/inadequate record for PFA contention; references were not relied upon to invalidate sentence
Preservation and appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims	Appellant preserved issues via motion to modify and appeal	Court applies four‑part Carter/Cook analysis for discretionary sentencing review after probation revocation	Appellant satisfied preservation items except where not raised; no substantial question or merit shown, so sentence affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Carver, 923 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2007) (challenge to total confinement is a discretionary sentencing issue)
Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discretionary‑aspects challenge after revocation is reviewable)
Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sentence challenges are discretionary‑aspect issues)
Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 2005) (excessive sentence claim is discretionary)
Commonwealth v. Roden, 730 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 1999) (reliance on impermissible factors is a discretionary sentencing issue)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope of review includes discretionary aspects after revocation; preservation rules)
Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (four‑part test to reach merits of discretionary sentencing issues)
Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (substantial‑question standard must be assessed before merits)
Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sentencing is within trial court discretion)
Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 868 A.2d 582 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court cannot consider materials not in certified record)
Commonwealth v. McKiel, 629 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Super. 1993) (what constitutes a substantial question for appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial‑question standard discussion)
Commonwealth v. Russell, 460 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 1983) (requirement that sentencing court consider Sentencing Code principles)
Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to consider public protection, gravity, rehabilitative needs raises substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claim court disregarded rehabilitation/nature of offense presents substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Scott, 860 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate review of whether trial judge relied on impermissible factors requires review of judge’s remarks)
Commonwealth v. Rhoads, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (allegation of reliance on impermissible factors raises substantial question)