Com. v. Santiago, J.
Com. v. Santiago, J. No. 1459 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- On March 15–16, 2015 a vehicle driven by Jose Antonio Santiago struck two pedestrians on Airport Road; one (Anna Lewis) died from traumatic amputation, the other (Rosalie Carlo) suffered permanent injury. Video and reconstruction indicated impact speeds ~66–72 mph; body parts were found in Santiago’s car and Lewis’ DNA on his clothing.
- Santiago was found near the car later, smelled of alcohol, had marijuana in his system, and later had BAC 0.11 (blood drawn ~4:17 a.m.). He initially denied involvement.
- Separate drug-sale incidents (Dec. 16, 2014 and Jan. 5, 2015) led to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance (about one ounce of marijuana each).
- Santiago pleaded guilty (Jan. 25, 2016) to homicide by vehicle while DUI, aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI, DUI–high rate, and two drug delivery counts; he admitted violations of probation in two prior consolidated cases.
- At sentencing (Apr. 4, 2016) the court imposed consecutive terms producing an aggregate sentence of 13–26 years’ incarceration (including consecutive sentences for the DUI homicide and aggravated assault counts and consecutive VOP terms). Santiago filed a post-sentence motion and appealed after denial; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences produced an excessive aggregate sentence raising a substantial question | Commonwealth: sentences appropriate given gravity, victim impact, and criminal history | Santiago: consecutive maximum DUI-related sentences and failure to consider mitigating factors made aggregate sentence manifestly excessive | No substantial question; even if reached, no abuse of discretion—sentence affirmed |
| Whether appeal from VOP sentences was timely | Commonwealth: appeal untimely for VOPs (appeal period not tolled) | Santiago: trial court misinformed him about appeal deadlines; lateness caused by court error | Court exercised jurisdiction despite untimeliness because trial court’s misstatement caused breakdown; appeal considered |
| Preservation of discretionary-sentencing claim | Commonwealth: defendant failed to preserve some sentencing claims | Santiago: argued court ignored §9721 factors and mitigators | Only claim consistently preserved was challenge to consecutive sentences; other claims waived |
| Whether sentencing court failed to follow statutory sentencing factors | Commonwealth: court considered gravity, victim impact, defendant’s record | Santiago: court failed to state reasons and ignored mitigating evidence | Court adequately explained reliance on brutality of offense, victim impact, long criminal history, and lack of cooperation; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (preservation requirements for discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court misstatement of appeal period can excuse untimely appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 149 A.3d 867 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appeal from VOP sentencing; timeliness and court misstatement exception)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (aggregate consecutive sentences can raise a substantial question when apparently excessive)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing must consider protection of public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitative needs)