Com. v. Scott, R.
781 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2016Background
- Ronald A. Scott pleaded guilty to multiple theft, forgery, and access-device fraud charges from 2012–2014 and was admitted to Lancaster County Adult Drug Court; sentencing was deferred pending program completion.
- While under Drug Court supervision and on parole/probation, Scott committed additional offenses in 2014, was discharged from Drug Court, and faced new criminal charges plus parole/probation violation hearings.
- At sentencing the court considered numerous dockets (28 felonies and 28 misdemeanors across multiple years), Scott’s long criminal history, addiction history, drug-court participation, and a presentence investigation report.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment, with several sentences ordered consecutively and others concurrent; many individual sentences were within guideline ranges.
- Scott filed a post-sentence motion arguing the aggregate consecutive sentence was manifestly excessive and an abuse of discretion; the trial court denied it and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences producing 15–30 years were an abuse of discretion | Scott: consecutive aggregate is disproportionate; court ignored rehabilitation and offense circumstances | Commonwealth/Trial court: sentencing discretion justified by volume of conduct, history, failed rehab attempts | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence neither clearly unreasonable nor manifestly excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (deference to sentencing court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2014) (consecutive sentence challenge can present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (definition of clearly unreasonable sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (disfavoring a "volume discount" via concurrent sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (concurrent sentences not required to avoid volume discount)
- Commonwealth v. Fiascki, 886 A.2d 261 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for overturning consecutive sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discretion to impose consecutive sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sentencing court’s consideration of individual circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Diaz, 867 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2005) (affirming consecutive aggregate for repeated crimes over time)
- Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (presumption sentencing court weighed mitigating factors when PSI considered)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (PSI reliance supports sentencing decision)
- Commonwealth v. Hanson, 856 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004) (challenge to weighing of mitigating factors does not always raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Roden, 730 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 1999) (court may consider seriousness and community impact)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 716 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. 1998) (outside-guidelines sentence appropriate where defendant repeatedly failed to reform)