133 A.3d 65
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- On May 7, 2011, Alton M. Parker drove a car (not his) the wrong way into a blocked neighborhood block party, striking moonbounces and multiple children and dragging at least one child inside a moonbounce several houses.
- Neighbors chased and detained Parker; he brandished and swung a hatchet at bystanders and an off-duty officer; officers smelled PCP and arrested him after the hatchet was taken away.
- Hospital blood testing showed 42 ng/mL PCP in Parker’s blood; victims (several children) suffered serious injuries and lasting impairments, especially one child (Andre Clark).
- Following a bench trial, Parker was convicted of multiple counts including aggravated assault, aggravated assault—DUI, PIC, REAP, accidents involving personal injury, criminal mischief, and DUI—controlled substances.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 19 to 38 years’ imprisonment (standard-range sentences, many run consecutively). Parker appealed, challenging the discretionary aspects of sentencing as manifestly excessive.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and explaining the court had considered sentencing factors (seriousness of conduct, prior record, drug abuse, risk to community, victims’ harm).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate 19–38 year sentence is manifestly excessive | Parker: aggregate effectively a life sentence for a 56‑year‑old in poor health; disproportionate given victims survived and largely recovered | Commonwealth/Trial ct: sentences were within guideline ranges and necessary given violent conduct, serious victim injuries, PCP use, prior record, and public protection needs | Affirmed: challenge waived for failure to preserve; even on merits no abuse of discretion — court properly considered factors and sentences not clearly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for appellate review of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 2010) (challenge to consecutive sentences implicates discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four‑part preliminary inquiry for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (objections to discretionary aspects of sentence waived if not raised at sentencing or in post‑sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requirement to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement when challenging discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2008) (consecutive standard‑range sentences producing virtual life term can raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011) (key test: whether consecutive sentencing produces an aggregate sentence that appears excessive given the conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)