Com. v. Serrano, M.
564 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Michael Serrano was convicted in 2011 of PWID, conspiracy, criminal use of a communication facility, and (initially mis-identified) delivery of a controlled substance after a jury trial.
- Sentencing history involved multiple resentencings and appeals: original aggregate sentence of 31–82 years (2012), vacated and remanded for errors in the verdict slip and later for Alleyne-related mandatory minimum issues.
- After repeated remands and a change of judge (Judge Peoples deceased; Judge Sullivan and later resentencing), Serrano received lengthy aggregate terms including a mandatory minimum at one point; procedural defects led to further remands.
- On March 10, 2017, following the Superior Court’s instruction to re-evaluate sentencing, Serrano was resentenced to an aggregate 8 years 9 months to 17.5 years incarceration, followed by 20 years probation.
- Serrano appealed the discretionary aspects of his sentence, arguing the court failed to consider his rehabilitation and rehabilitative needs under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), making probationary supervision excessive.
- The Superior Court found Serrano failed to preserve the discretionary-sentencing challenge because he did not object at sentencing nor file a post-sentence motion; the court therefore affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing court abused discretion by failing to consider rehabilitation and rehabilitative needs, making probation excessive | Serrano: sentence (probation + supervision) was manifestly excessive because court did not consider rehabilitation while incarcerated and his rehabilitative needs per § 9721(b) | Commonwealth: Serrano failed to preserve the discretionary-sentence claim (no objection at sentencing, no post-sentence motion), so the challenge is waived | Appeal dismissed on preservation grounds; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Serrano, 150 A.3d 470 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prior Superior Court opinion addressing resentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Serrano, 61 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2013) (vacating delivery conviction due to verdict-sheet error)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (factfinding increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (preservation requirement for discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no automatic appeal right for discretionary sentencing challenges)