Com. v. Mendez, C., Com. v. Mendez, C. No. 1637 WDA 2016

Christopher A. Mendez pleaded guilty in March 2015 to criminal trespass and received 8–24 months (less one day) plus two years probation; credited with time served and paroled in Sept. 2015.
In May 2016 Mendez was arrested for driving erratically with alcohol odor and slurred speech; two children (ages 3 and 4) were passengers.
He stipulated to parole violation, which was revoked, and pled guilty to endangering the welfare of children and DUI—minor occupants.
In October 2016 the court resentenced trespass to 2–5 years, and imposed 1–5 years for endangering and 1–5 years for DUI (concurrent with each other but consecutive to trespass), for an aggregate 3–10 years; time served credited.
Mendez filed a motion for reconsideration and timely appealed, arguing his sentence was manifestly excessive and the court failed to consider mitigating evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive/abuse of discretion	Mendez: aggregate sentence excessive; court overlooked mitigating evidence and should have run sentences concurrently	Commonwealth: sentences were within standard guideline ranges, less than statutory maxima; court considered necessary information including PSI	Court: No substantial question raised; sentences were standard-range and lawful; consecutive terms not an abuse; appeal denied

Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (manifestly excessive claim challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (no appeal as of right for discretionary sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (need Rule 2119(f) statement to raise substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Rule 2119(f) limits sentencing appeals to exceptional cases)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2003) (case-by-case determination of substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentences generally not a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (no entitlement to a volume discount for multiple crimes)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court’s weighing of mitigating factors does not necessarily raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI)