Com. v. Santana, J., 3796 EDA 2015

Appellant Jose Santana pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for stabbing Luis Rivera Rojas multiple times, causing life‑threatening injuries.
Plea occurred August 17, 2015; sentencing on October 12, 2015 produced a 10–20 year statutory‑maximum term.
Appellant filed post‑sentence motions (including pro se effort to withdraw plea) and appealed after denial of relief; counsel withdrew the withdrawal request and pursued sentence modification.
On appeal, Santana argued the court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence without adequately considering mitigating factors or explaining the deviation from sentencing guidelines.
Trial court stated it considered hearings, the presentence investigation (PSI), guidelines, the victim’s severe injuries, Santana’s lack of remorse, flight after the stabbing, and community protection when imposing the maximum sentence.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by imposing statutory maximum without adequate reasons	Court failed to state adequate reasons for deviating from guideline range	Court provided adequate on‑the‑record reasons (PSI, facts, lack of remorse, danger to community)	Affirmed — reasons stated on record were adequate
Whether court failed to consider mitigating factors	Court did not properly consider Appellant’s personal/rehabilitative factors	PSI was before court, presumption court considered mitigating factors	Waived in part for preservation failures; on merits, claim fails — PSI shows court considered factors
Preservation of sentencing claims	Post‑sentence motion raised excessive/manifestly unjust sentence and mitigation; did not raise failure to explain deviation	Commonwealth: claims not preserved if not raised at sentencing or in post‑sentence motion; 1925(b) statement must include issues	Some claims waived for failure to preserve; Rule 1925(b) omission waived issues
Whether appellate review presents a substantial question	Santana argued lack of adequate reasons and deviation from guidelines raises substantial question	Commonwealth did not dispute that these arguments can present a substantial question when properly preserved	Court found a substantial question was raised but, on merits, no abuse of discretion

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four‑part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d 945 (Pa. Super. 2008) (preservation required and cannot advance new legal theories on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing court must state adequate on‑record reasons for guideline deviations; PSI creates presumption court considered relevant factors)
Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PSI informs court of defendant’s character; presumption court weighed appropriate factors)
Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial‑question analysis is fact‑specific)