Com. v. Ransom, L.
Com. v. Ransom, L. No. 1495 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 15, 2017Background
- On September 3, 2015, Ransom participated in an armed robbery of a jewelry store; his codefendant held a firearm to an employee’s head while Ransom took items; both wore masks and fled in a vehicle later stopped in Maryland where proceeds and firearms were recovered.
- Ransom pled guilty on August 2, 2016 to second-degree felony robbery and received a sentence of 2 to 5 years (minimum 24 months).
- The sentencing officer applied the deadly weapon enhancement (DWE) matrix because Ransom knew his codefendant had a firearm, and calculated a standard guideline range of 12–20 months with an aggravated range up to 26 months under the DWE Possessed matrix.
- Ransom filed a timely post-sentence motion and appeal, arguing it was improper to impose an aggravated-range sentence when the DWE already enhanced the guideline range and that the court failed to adequately state reasons for aggravation.
- The trial court explained reasons on the record (victim impact, foreseeability of harm, lack of provocation, inability to compensate victims) and denied relief. The Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying an aggravated-range sentence is improper when the DWE already enhanced the guideline | Ransom: DWE already ‘enhanced’ guidelines; imposing aggravated-range on top of DWE is impermissible double enhancement | Court: DWE matrices expressly include aggravated/mitigated columns; aggravated range may be imposed when supported by factors | Affirmed: aggravated-range sentence permitted; no per se bar to aggravated range after DWE |
| Whether trial court inadequately stated reasons for imposing aggravated sentence | Ransom: court’s reasons duplicated factors already reflected in offense gravity/prior record and DWE; insufficient explanation on record | Court: record (PSI and on-the-record statement) and victim testimony show consideration of crime and offender; reasons were permissible and non-duplicative | Affirmed: statement of reasons adequate; sentencing court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. Commonwealth, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary-aspect sentencing review prerequisites)
- Crump v. Commonwealth, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question and need for plausible argument)
- Buterbaugh v. Commonwealth, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (challenging DWE application can present a substantial question)
- Phillips v. Commonwealth, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (DWE can apply to unarmed co-conspirators who know a co-actor has a weapon)
- McNabb v. Commonwealth, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2003) (substantial question where court allegedly failed to state sufficient reasons or relied on impermissible factors)