Com. v. Robertson, W., Jr., Com. v. Robertson, W., Jr. No. 1792 MDA 2016

Appellant Willie L. Robertson Jr. was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts each of burglary, theft, and criminal mischief for separate break-ins at the 1722 Motor Lodge (incidents dated April 21, 2015 and on/around May 6, 2015).
Surveillance stills led police to obtain a search warrant of Robertson’s home, where stolen property was recovered.
Before trial, defense sought to exclude testimony about an April 30, 2015 report of suspicious activity at the motel; the trial court allowed brief testimony for the limited purpose of explaining the police investigation.
After conviction, the court sentenced Robertson to consecutive terms of 30 months to 6 years on each burglary count (aggregate 5–12 years); theft merged for sentencing and criminal mischief received concurrent probation terms.
Robertson filed a petition to vacate seeking concurrent burglary sentences and timely appealed after the petition was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Robertson)	Held
1) Discretionary sentencing — consecutive vs. concurrent sentences	Court properly exercised discretion; PSI considered; public protection and offender history support consecutive sentences	Consecutive burglary sentences were manifestly excessive, not individualized, should run concurrently as part of one criminal episode	Waived on appeal for lack of preservation; alternatively, no abuse of discretion — sentencing court considered relevant factors and PSI, so consecutive terms upheld
2) Motion in limine — admission of testimony about April 30, 2015 report	Testimony was admissible non-hearsay to explain police investigation and was brief; jury instructed to consider only April 21 and May 6 incidents	April 30 report was irrelevant and prejudicial hearsay and should have been excluded	No abuse of discretion — testimony used to explain investigation (non-hearsay), was brief, cumulative, and jury instruction mitigated prejudice

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standards for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Solomon, 151 A.3d 672 (Pa. Super. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016) (presumption that judge considered PSI and relevant information)
Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial judge may decide whether sentences run consecutively or concurrently)
Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (out-of-court statements may be admissible to explain course of conduct and are not hearsay for that purpose)
Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and Rule 403 balancing)
Commonwealth v. Hanford, 937 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2007) (new theories of relief generally cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)