Com. v. Novis, J.
Com. v. Novis, J. No. 2280 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- In the early morning of May 4, 2013, James Novis was involved in a single-vehicle crash at high speed (approx. 83 mph in a 50 mph zone) that vaulted his car about 45 feet; one passenger, Cheri Hummel, was nonresponsive and died at the scene.
- Officer detected strong odor of alcohol on Novis and Hummel; state police investigation supported excessive speed and loss of vehicle control.
- Novis pleaded guilty on November 12, 2015 to homicide by vehicle while DUI, DUI (general and high-rate alcohol), and accidents involving death or personal injury while not properly licensed.
- After a presentence investigation report (PSI), the court sentenced Novis on December 2, 2015 to an aggregate term of 7 to 14 years’ imprisonment (aggravated range of the guidelines).
- Novis filed post-sentence motions which were denied and timely appealed, challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence as excessive and arguing the court failed to adequately consider remorse and mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in sentencing (aggravated range) | Commonwealth contended sentence was appropriate given facts and Novis’s record | Novis argued the court abused discretion by relying on factors already in the guidelines and failing to consider remorse/mitigation | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentencing court permissibly relied on criminal history plus other extraneous info and had PSI |
| Whether court failed to consider remorse and mitigating circumstances | Commonwealth relied on PSI and sentencing record showing court considered mitigation | Novis asserted court did not adequately weigh remorse and mitigating factors | Held: Court presumed to have considered PSI and relevant mitigators; record shows consideration, so claim lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary-sentencing challenges treated as petitions for permission to appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requirements for raising substantial question and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (what may constitute a substantial question when sentencing within guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentencing review standard and presumption that court considered PSI)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court may not rely solely on guideline factors to justify aggravated sentence; may supplement with other extraneous information)