Com. v. Nieves, A.
1371 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- Appellant Anthony S. Nieves pled guilty to multiple offenses arising from sexual assaults and drugging of four minors (including his 13‑year‑old daughter and her 13–14‑year‑old friends) occurring in 2011 and November 2012: one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI), two counts of rape, production of child pornography, and possession with intent to deliver.
- Facts included giving victims alcohol and oxycodone, grooming behavior, videotaping one assault, and familial/position‑of‑trust relationships with at least one victim.
- At an SVP hearing the Commonwealth’s expert diagnosed Nieves with an unspecified paraphilic disorder (attraction to post‑pubertal teenagers) and a history of psychotic disorder; the court found him a sexually violent predator (SVP).
- The PSI recommended an aggregate standard‑range sentence of 15–30 years; the trial court imposed consecutive aggravated‑range sentences totaling 18–36 years (three consecutive terms of 72–144 months for two rapes and one IDSI), with other counts concurrent.
- Nieves timely moved for reconsideration (denied) and appealed, arguing the aggravated sentence was excessive because the court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (notably his psychosis) and rehabilitative needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggravated‑range consecutive sentence was an abuse of discretion | Commonwealth: sentence was individualized, necessary to protect public and reflect gravity of offenses and victim impact | Nieves: sentence exceeded PSI recommendation, ignored mitigating factors (manageable psychosis), disproportionate to similar cases | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered statutory factors and justified aggravated consecutive terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (Rule 2119(f) statement requirements for discretionary sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (substantial question analysis for aggravated sentence challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing review factors and affirmance of sentences exceeding guidelines where individualized and protective of public)