Com. v. Sarvey, M., 985 WDA 2020

In July 2011 Appellant Melissa Sarvey, while incarcerated, attempted to pass one-half tablet of oxycodone and one tablet of zolpidem to another inmate by sliding them under her cell door; the act was recorded and the contraband was recovered.
Sarvey was convicted at trial in April 2012 of multiple drug-related offenses (including possession with intent to deliver and related prison contraband offenses) and received an aggregate sentence of 10.5 to 24 years plus probation.
After direct appeal and PCRA litigation, this Court in Sarvey I (2018) found trial counsel ineffective for failing to challenge the discretionary aspects of sentencing, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
The trial court resentenced Sarvey; this Court in Sarvey II (2020) again found the new sentence unreasonable and remanded a second time.
On August 19, 2020 the trial court imposed an aggregate 7 years 3 months to 14.5 years; Sarvey appealed, arguing the sentence (over ten years maximum exposure) was excessive for attempting to pass 1.5 pills.
The Superior Court vacated the August 2020 sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding the court failed to provide an individualized sentence and unreasonably disregarded the minimal quantity of drugs involved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an aggregate sentence exceeding ten years for attempting to pass 1.5 pills was an abuse of discretion / clearly unreasonable	Sarvey: sentence excessive and unduly harsh given the minimal quantity and nonviolent nature of the offense; sentencing was not individualized	Trial court/Commonwealth: seriousness of bringing two controlled substances into prison, need for state parole and rehabilitation, defendant's history justified a lengthy consecutive sentence	Held: Vacated and remanded for resentencing — sentence was clearly unreasonable because the court failed to sufficiently individualize and disregarded the small quantity of contraband

Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436 (Pa. Super. 2018) (PCRA decision finding ineffective assistance for failing to raise discretionary-sentencing claim; vacated sentence)
Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 237 A.3d 484 (Pa. Super. 2020) (second Superior Court decision vacating resentencing as unreasonable and remanding)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (principle of individualized sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Holiday, 954 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellate court cannot impose a specific sentence; resentencing discretion remains with trial court)
Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. 2011) (factors appellate court must consider when determining a sentence is clearly unreasonable)
Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review jurisdiction)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive sentences may raise a substantial question when aggregate sentence is unduly harsh)
Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for discretionary aspects of sentencing)