Com. v. Morales, E.
Com. v. Morales, E. No. 1996 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 14, 2017Background
- On July 22, 2014, police stopped Edwin Morales for a turn-signal violation and found 12.76 grams of cocaine; he gave a false name and posted $100,000 cash bail.
- While on bail, Morales was stopped again on January 8, 2015, arrested on an outstanding PWID warrant, and a subsequent search of his BMW recovered a Taurus 9mm in the center console; he was barred from possessing firearms due to a 2007 felony drug conviction.
- Morales pled guilty on January 8, 2016 to PWID, providing false identification, driving on a suspended license, and a summary traffic violation (docket CP-36-CR-0000344-2015).
- On July 12, 2016, he pled guilty to persons not to possess a firearm and possession of a firearm without a license (docket CP-36-CR-0000293-2016); sentencing was deferred for a PSI.
- On October 17, 2016, the court imposed standard-range sentences: 33–66 months on PWID (concurrent probation and fines on other counts) and 6–12 years plus concurrent 5–10 years on the firearm counts; the two dockets were ordered consecutive, yielding an aggregate 105–210 months.
- Morales moved for reconsideration, was denied, appealed claiming his aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive/discretionary-aspects challenge | Morales: sentence is too severe and inconsistent with protection of public, gravity of offenses, and rehabilitative needs | Commonwealth: court imposed standard-range sentences after PSI and properly considered sentencing factors | Court: No abuse of discretion; sentences were standard-range, PSI considered, and combined consecutively permissibly |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa.Super. 2016) (framework for discretionary-aspect-of-sentencing review and four-part preservation test)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa.Super. 2015) (what constitutes a substantial question evaluated case-by-case)
- Commonwealth v. Serrano, 150 A.3d 470 (Pa.Super. 2016) (failure to consider protection of the public, gravity, and rehabilitation can raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (2007) (trial court must consider statutory sentencing factors and state reasons on the record)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa.Super. 2013) (when a court has a PSI and imposes a sentence within the standard guideline range, the sentence is generally appropriate)