Com. v. Sharp, W., 1877 MDA 2016

Appellant Whitley Sharp pled guilty (Aug 11, 2016) to endangering the welfare of children, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia after acknowledging she allowed the child’s father to severely beat the child, failed to seek medical attention, and told the child not to disclose the abuse.
At sentencing (Sept 26, 2016) the trial court relied on the pre-sentence report and photos of the child’s injuries and imposed 3½ to 7 years’ incarceration on the EWOC count (no further incarceration on other counts).
Sharp filed a post-sentence motion claiming the court failed to consider mitigating factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b); the motion was denied and she appealed timely.
On appeal Sharp argued the sentence was excessive and that the trial court did not adequately consider mitigating circumstances, rehabilitation needs, or her lack of prior record.
The Superior Court directed supplementation of the record when the sentencing transcript was initially missing; after the transcript and a new Rule 1925(a) opinion were filed, the panel reviewed the discretionary-sentencing claim.
The trial court expressly considered the pre-sentence report, counsel’s remarks, and evidence of the child’s severe injuries, but assigned little weight to mitigating factors and imposed a sentence beyond the guideline range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors when imposing aggravated-range sentence	Sharp: court did not give adequate weight to mitigation (rehabilitation over incarceration, lack of prior record, caring for child, history of abuse)	Commonwealth/Trial Ct: court considered mitigation and PSR but gave greater weight to gravity of child’s injuries and need for rehabilitation; sentence outside guidelines was explained	No abuse of discretion; court considered factors and reasonably gave them less weight, so sentence affirmed

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (framework that discretionary-sentencing challenges are not reviewable as of right)
Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements to reach discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing claim on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural prerequisites for discretionary-sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (imposition of aggravated-range sentence without considering mitigation raises substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate court will not reweigh sentencing factors where trial court considered them)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption sentencing judge was aware of PSR and weighed relevant defendant information)