Com. v. Pisarchuk, I.
2023 Pa. Super. 254
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2023Background
- From 2016–2021 Appellant Ian Pisarchuk used Snapchat pseudonyms to blackmail adults and minors (ages 12–17) into sending sexually explicit photos/videos by threatening to post images and by making threats of rape and murder.
- Police recovered his messages and numerous photos/videos; one adult victim, Lindsey Piccone, died by suicide after receiving threats.
- Commonwealth charged Appellant in two consolidated dockets with a total of 67 counts including sexual abuse of children, child pornography, sexual extortion, stalking, terroristic threats, and related offenses.
- Appellant entered open guilty pleas to the remaining counts, waived a PSI, and the trial court deferred SVP classification (later finding he was not an SVP).
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive state prison terms that aggregated to 20 to 51 years, plus 10 years probation and SORNA registration; Appellant filed a post-sentence motion and appealed, challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Pisarchuk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive aggregate sentence and relying on improper factors | Sentence appropriate given egregious facts, victim impact (including suicide), need to protect public, rehabilitative needs, and court's statutory discretion to depart and run sentences consecutively | Sentence excessive and unreasonable; court relied on unsupported statements about lifelong supervision and high recidivism risk; ignored mitigation and expert report showing low–moderate risk; improperly considered suicide and victim states of mind | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion: it considered guidelines, victim impact (suicide permissible), expert evidence, gave on-record reasons for departure and consecutive terms, and sentence was not unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing review not automatic; preservation required)
- Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2023) (pairing excessive-sentence claim with failure-to-consider-mitigation raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for departing from guidelines and contemporaneous reasons on the record)
- Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2018) (victim impact may include suicide/mental-health effects)
- Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302 (Pa. Super. 2022) (consecutive sentences within court's discretion; no "volume discount")
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (appellate court may consider reproduced-record materials if reproduction accuracy not disputed)