Com. v. Schaffer, B., 1198 WDA 2016

On Jan. 2, 2015, Schaffer, the victim (Ameyanna Sanchez), and a third person were using methamphetamine and drinking; the victim had a history of mental illness and prior suicide attempts.
During an argument, Schaffer retrieved a gun from his truck, removed the magazine, held it to his head to "prove" he wasn’t lying, then loaded the gun while the victim held it.
The victim put the gun to her head and fatally shot herself; Schaffer called 911. Schaffer gave multiple inconsistent statements to police about the events.
A jury convicted Schaffer of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and involuntary manslaughter; the court sentenced him to consecutive terms (2–5 years for manslaughter; 2–10 years for PWID).
Schaffer challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence, arguing the trial court relied on elements of the offense ("death of another" and "recklessness") as aggravating factors when imposing a non‑guideline sentence.
The Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by using an element of the crime to justify a sentence outside the aggravated guideline range	Schaffer: Court relied on "death of another" and "recklessness," which are elements of involuntary manslaughter, to aggravate sentence	Commonwealth/Trial court: Sentence was based on atypical, highly reckless facts (introducing a loaded gun into a high‑risk drug/mental‑health situation), public protection, gravity of harm, and rehabilitative needs—not merely the offense element	Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; court adequately stated non‑guideline reasons and relied on case‑specific atypical facts rather than solely on crime elements

Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court should identify how a case deviates from a "typical" offense to justify sentencing outside guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 846 A.2d 152 (Pa. Super. 2004) (guidelines deviation must be tied to facts distinguishing the case from the norm)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (raising a plausible claim that sentencing relied on an element of the crime can present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI and relevant character information)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (sentencing court presumed aware of relevant information when PSI exists)