Com. v. Moyer, C., Jr., 2064 MDA 2016

Defendant Carl Moyer pled guilty to three counts of DUI—highest rate of alcohol (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c)) for offenses on March 15, May 3, and August 30, 2014; BACs were .22, .21, and .22.
Prior record score classified Moyer as RFEL due to a 1990 conviction for attempted homicide/aggravated assault, which affected guideline calculations.
At sentencing the court initially imposed 15 years of Intermediate Punishment (IP) with 17.5 months in county pre-release, citing mitigation: age (60), employment, treatment efforts, and that most PRS points derived from 25‑year‑old convictions.
After learning Moyer misrepresented his recovery efforts (only one AA meeting and recent drinking), the court vacated the IP disposition and imposed three consecutive 2–5 year terms (aggregate 6–15 years state imprisonment).
Moyer appealed nunc pro tunc, arguing the consecutive state sentences were excessive and that the court improperly disregarded rehabilitation and mitigating factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence is reviewable	(Commonwealth) Not applicable — court exercised discretion	Moyer: sentence is manifestly excessive and guidelines application unreasonable	Appeal allowed to consider discretionary sentencing issue because procedural requirements satisfied
Whether consecutive standard-range sentences were unreasonable	N/A	Moyer: consecutive 24–60 month sentences disproportionate; mitigated range appropriate given rehab efforts	Court: sentences within guideline range; no abuse of discretion; considered factors and credibility concerns justified incarceration
Whether court ignored mitigating evidence	N/A	Moyer: court overlooked his treatment participation, employment, community support, and age	Court: did consider mitigation but found misrepresentations and continued drinking undermined mitigation; weight afforded was discretionary
Whether prior 1990 convictions improperly inflated guideline score	N/A	Moyer: prior convictions overstated culpability and risk	Court: acknowledged overstatement but still found public protection warranted state prison after misrepresentations and repeated DUI conduct

Commonwealth v. Hunter, 768 A.2d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2001) (four-part analysis for discretionary sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural requirements before reviewing discretionary aspects of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (determination of a substantial question is case-by-case)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (substantial question exists when sentence is inconsistent with sentencing norms)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (disproportionate consecutive sentences and failure to consider rehabilitation can raise substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 162 A.3d 1140 (Pa. Super. 2017) (appellant must show record support that court ignored/misapplied law or acted from bias)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing court must consider offense circumstances and defendant's character)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing judge considered presentence report)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentences within standard guideline range are generally appropriate)