Com. v. Robinson, C., Com. v. Robinson, C. No. 1397 EDA 2015

Appellant Coley Robinson pleaded guilty (no plea agreement) to charges arising from three incidents: possession/carrying firearms (Aug. 19, 2012), armed robberies and shooting (Sept. 25, 2012) that wounded a deaf victim, and firearm/controlled substance possession (Oct. 12, 2012).
At the Sept. 25 incident Robinson threatened three men with a gun, took money from two, and shot Isiah Durham in the stomach; Durham survived.
Sentencing (Dec. 19, 2014) produced concurrent 2–4 year terms on two cases and a consecutive aggregate sentence on the Sept. 25 case; the trial court announced an aggregate of 14–28 years (there was a discrepancy in the written order).
Robinson filed post-sentence motions challenging the aggregate sentence as excessive and as based solely on offense seriousness (court allegedly failed to weigh mitigation); post-sentence motion was denied by operation of law.
On appeal Robinson argued the sentence was manifestly unreasonable and that the court failed to consider mitigating factors and improperly relied on factors already accounted for in the guidelines; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the aggregate sentence (14–28 yrs as orally announced) was excessive/manifestly unreasonable	Robinson: aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, exceeds guideline rationale, court failed to consider mitigation, relied only on seriousness of offense	Commonwealth/Trial court: individual counts (including aggravated assault) were sentenced within guidelines; PSI and hearing show court considered mitigation and §9721 factors; consecutive sentences are discretionary	Held: No abuse of discretion. Sentence within aggravated range for aggravated assault and other counts within guideline ranges; record shows consideration of mitigation; consecutive sentences permissible and not extreme
Whether trial court failed to consider mitigating factors / sentenced solely on seriousness of offense	Robinson: court focused on offense gravity (victim's deafness, severity) and ignored individualized circumstances and rehab needs	Trial court: had PSI, heard mitigation evidence (military service, family support), cited those factors at sentencing; sentencing court entitled to weigh factors as it deems fit	Held: No. Court considered mitigation and §9721 factors; mere disagreement with weight assigned does not show abuse of discretion

Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (appellate review of sentencing is constrained; three statutory categories for vacatur)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when PSI exists, court is presumed aware of defendant's background and considered mitigating factors)
Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (imposition of consecutive sentences is within trial court discretion; only extreme aggregates raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sentence within aggravated range is still "within the guidelines")
Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (claim that court sentenced solely on seriousness of offense raises a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (abuse of discretion definition in sentencing context)
Commonwealth v. McLaine, 150 A.3d 70 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedural requirements to invoke appellate review of discretionary aspects)
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim with assertion of failure to consider mitigation raises substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (trial court must correct sentencing order if it conflicts with oral pronouncement)