Com. v. Morro, M., 444 MDA 2021

In 2018 Morro was stopped for speeding; police found he was a prohibited person carrying a loaded pistol and found drugs/paraphernalia; he initially gave a false name.
He was charged with multiple offenses; in Feb 2021 the Commonwealth amended charges to elevate the weapons count to a first‑degree felony (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1)) and withdrew other counts except a summary speeding offense.
On the eve of trial Morro pled guilty to the weapons count (felony 1) and later completed a written colloquy; sentencing occurred the same day.
The trial court sentenced Morro to 9 to 20 years’ imprisonment (below the REVOC guidelines range of 10–20 years), explaining it referenced RFEL ranges to provide flexibility and to facilitate placement for drug treatment during incarceration.
Morro filed a post‑sentence motion arguing failure to order a PSI or explain its absence and that the trial court misapplied the sentencing guidelines, producing an excessive sentence; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
The Superior Court affirmed: it found Morro preserved the guidelines issue (raising a substantial question), but held the court considered required factors, the sentence was legal (9–20 years), and any improper downward departure did not render the sentence illegal such that the court must correct it sua sponte.

Issue	Morro's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether sentence was manifestly excessive / trial court failed to consider mitigating factors	Sentence excessive; court failed to consider mitigating factors and rehabilitative needs	Court considered required factors; sentence within discretion	Held: No. Court considered mitigating factors; sentence not manifestly excessive
Whether trial court misapplied sentencing guidelines (used RFEL instead of REVOC / improperly departed downward)	Court used RFEL to avoid stating reasons and thus misapplied guidelines producing improper downward departure	Any error benefitted Morro (produced lower minimum); REVOC was applicable and sentence remained legal	Held: Even if court erred, sentence fell below REVOC range but was legal; improper departure is abuse of discretion but not an illegal sentence requiring sua sponte correction
Whether trial court erred by not ordering a presentence investigation (PSI) or stating reasons for declining one	Court abused discretion by failing to order or explain absence of PSI	No PSI requested before plea; no material facts proffered that PSI would have changed sentence	Held: No relief; absence of PSI was explained and failure to produce one did not warrant relief

Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing lies within trial court discretion)
Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defines "substantial question" for sentencing review)
Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (preservation rules for discretionary aspects of sentence)
Paul v. Commonwealth, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (case‑by‑case evaluation of substantial question)
McNabb v. Commonwealth, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2003) (bare allegations of failure to consider mitigators usually not a substantial question)
Griffin v. Commonwealth, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court must consider offender’s character, record, rehabilitative needs)
Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim + failure to consider mitigators can raise a substantial question)
Krum v. Commonwealth, 533 A.2d 134 (Pa. Super. 1987) (erroneous consideration by sentencing court is abuse of discretion but does not automatically render sentence illegal)
Randal v. Commonwealth, 837 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Super. 2003) (distinguishing illegal sentences reviewable sua sponte)
Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing guidelines are one factor in trial court’s sentencing authority)