Com. v. Mongeau, P., 3513 EDA 2015

Patrick Scott Mongeau was convicted by a Bucks County jury of arson endangering inhabited property, reckless burning endangering personal property, criminal mischief, stalking, simple assault, harassment, and recklessly endangering another person; he received consecutive prison terms totaling 16 to 32 years.
Post-sentence motions were filed (April 30, 2015) and denied by order after a hearing; subsequent orders denied on October 26, 2015, with a November 23, 2015 appeal filing and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
The Commonwealth sought to rely on a Domestic Violence Investigation Report at sentencing; Mongeau objected but ultimately the report was admitted.
The trial court’s sentence was challenged as manifestly excessive and as relying on improper/insufficient consideration of mitigating factors and rehabilitative needs, and as lacking sufficient record rationale; the Superior Court upheld the sentence.
On appeal, issues included timeliness of post-sentence motions and appeal, sufficiency of the evidence for certain convictions, and the discretionary aspects of sentencing.
The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment of sentence, with a remand to correct a clerical error in the stalking sentence.]

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of post-sentence motions and appeal	Mongeau challenged timeliness based on clerk's denial by operation of law.	State contends timeliness is proper; clerk error not fatal.	Appeal timely; no quashment for untimeliness.
Discretionary aspects of the sentence	Trial court relied only on offense seriousness and victim protection; failed to consider mitigating factors.	Court properly weighed factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and cited rehabilitative needs.	No abuse of discretion; reasons supported by record.
Sufficiency of evidence for simple assault	Victim sustained only scrapes/bruises; trial evidence failed to establish bodily injury.	Evidence showed intent to cause bodily injury and substantial steps; conduct supported assault conviction.	Sufficient evidence supported simple assault.
Sufficiency of evidence for arson, reckless burning, criminal mischief, recklessly endangering others	No confession or physical linkage to arson; insufficient proven connection to Mongeau.	Circumstantial evidence including matches, gasoline odor, flight, and threats linked him to crimes.	Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed; record to reflect stalking sentence correction.

Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing challenges; substantial question required for review)
Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (preserves that sentencing court weigh factors including offender's history and rehabilitation)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (pre-sentence reports presumed known by court and relevant to sentencing considerations)
Commonwealth v. Richardson, 636 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (conduct showing intent to cause bodily injury may support simple assault conviction even without injury)