Com. v. Ramos-Pacheco, A.
482 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Alexander Ramos-Pacheco pleaded guilty to multiple offenses arising from years-long domestic abuse of Heather Orlando, including aggravated assault, use of an electronic incapacitation device, terroristic threats, simple assaults, and stalking.
- Conduct included using a stun gun 20–30 times causing scarring, choking with a belt causing blackouts, pointing a gun at the victim, repeated physical beatings, threats to kill the victim and her children, and recordings of abuse.
- At sentencing the court imposed an aggregate term of 13 to 30 years’ imprisonment by running sentences on counts 2, 3, and 7 consecutively; other counts were concurrent.
- Appellant filed a post-sentence motion and timely appealed, arguing the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to adequately weigh mitigating factors (youth, limited education, mild intellectual disability, mental-health issues, sparse adult criminal history) and by imposing consecutive aggravated-range sentences.
- The trial court relied on the PSI, victim impact evidence (audio recordings, testimony), Appellant’s courtroom demeanor (lack of remorse), prior delinquency/adult convictions, failed rehabilitation attempts, and specific aggravating factors to justify consecutive and above-guidelines sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by not giving adequate weight to mitigating factors | Court failed to properly weigh youth, mild intellectual disability, low education, mental-health history, and limited adult criminal history, producing a manifestly excessive sentence | Sentencing court considered PSI and evaluations, observed Appellant’s lack of remorse, serious offense gravity, victim impact, and poor rehabilitation prospects; discretionary sentencing decisions are entitled to deference | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; mere dissatisfaction with weight assigned to mitigators is insufficient |
| Whether consecutive sentences above the aggravated guideline range were improper | Consecutive aggravated-range sentences were excessive and did not adequately consider rehabilitative needs | Consecutive and above-guideline sentences were supported by brutality, duration of abuse, aggravating factors, and need to protect public; guidelines are advisory | Court affirmed: consecutive above-guideline sentences not manifestly excessive |
| Whether the record shows failure to consider PSI and required sentencing factors | Appellant claims mitigators were not considered | Trial court explicitly reviewed and relied on PSI, evaluations, sentencing hearing observations, and stated reasons on record | Court found trial court did consider PSI and sentencing factors; presumption that mitigators were weighed applies |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh sentencing factors | Appellant asks for resentencing based on different balancing | Appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for trial court’s factual sentencing determinations | Court declined to reweigh; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for appellate review of discretionary sentencing and four-part jurisdictional test)
- Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing court’s institutional advantage; guidelines are advisory)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (appellant must show sentence inconsistent with Sentencing Code to raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (consideration of PSI creates presumption that mitigating factors were weighed)
- Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (claim that court imposed aggravated-range sentence without considering mitigators raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 741 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 1999) (appellate court should defer to sentencing court’s observations about defendant’s character and remorse)