Com. v. Mikell, F., 20 WDA 2016

Fredrick James Mikell pled guilty to Escape and was sentenced July 15, 2015 to 18 months' intermediate punishment (house arrest) and 3 years' probation.
Less than four months later the court found Mikell had committed numerous technical probation violations: missed electronic monitoring fees, multiple "window" (range) violations, positive drug tests for cocaine and marijuana, and failure to complete outpatient drug treatment.
At the violation hearing Mikell blamed his probation officer and his ankle monitor, and denied responsibility; the court found he had lied about reasons for discharge from treatment.
On December 1, 2015 the trial court revoked Mikell’s probation and resentenced him to 15–30 months’ incarceration followed by 3 years’ probation; a post-sentence motion was denied.
Mikell appealed, arguing the revocation sentence was manifestly excessive because the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs and available community-based sanctions.
The Superior Court considered whether Mikell raised a substantial question about discretionary aspects of sentencing and reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation sentence was manifestly excessive because the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and community sanctions	Mikell: court should have imposed renewed probation and community-based treatment with close supervision to address rehabilitation	Commonwealth / Trial court: record shows court considered rehabilitation but found Mikell not amenable to treatment outside incarceration given repeated violations and dishonesty	Sentence affirmed; no abuse of discretion — court considered rehabilitation but reasonably found incarceration necessary

Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary sentencing challenges not reviewable as of right)
Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
Mann v. Commonwealth, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (objections to discretionary aspects waived if not raised at sentencing or in motion)
Paul v. Commonwealth, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial-question determination is case-by-case)
Griffin v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quotation on what constitutes a substantial question)
Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for what raises a substantial question)
Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure-to-consider-rehabilitation claim can present a substantial question)