Com. v. Showalter, L., 1049 WDA 2016

Background

Defendant Larry Showalter was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against his daughter (offenses occurred when she was about 8–11) including rape of a child, IDSI, aggravated indecent assault, incest, endangering welfare of children, corruption of minors, and indecent exposure.
Original sentencing produced an aggregate 60–120 year term and a sexually violent predator (SVP) designation; this Court earlier vacated and remanded due to Alleyne-related mandatory-minimum issues and ordered resentencing.
On remand, the trial court resentenced Showalter to an aggregate 56–120 year term on June 22, 2016; the court denied a post-sentence motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, Showalter challenged the discretionary aspects of his resentencing, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences, failing to consider mitigating factors (delay in reporting, post-offense conduct, institutional behavior), and imposing an excessive aggregate sentence.
The trial court explained its reasons on the record: victim’s very young age, familial relationship (incest), pain inflicted, court’s SVP finding and perceived risk of reoffense, lack of remorse, protection of the public, and that most counts were within guideline ranges except for an upward departure on incest counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Showalter)	Held
Whether court abused discretion by imposing consecutive sentences and departing on incest counts	Sentencing was proper given victim age, incest relationship, SVP finding, lack of remorse, and separate incidents justified consecutive sentences	Consecutive sentences and upward departures were excessive, court failed to consider mitigating factors (delay in reporting, good institutional conduct), resulting in de facto life sentence	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Trial court gave detailed reasons; most counts within guideline range and departure justified for incest counts due to victim’s age and relationship.
Whether trial court failed to consider mitigating/rehabilitative factors	Court considered PSI, allocution, and rebuttal; deliberated rehabilitative needs and protection of public	Argues trial court ignored updated PSI and rehabilitative progress when imposing lengthy consecutive terms	Court found record shows consideration of PSI and factors; defendant’s statements and lack of remorse supported sentence.
Whether aggregate sentence is excessive / tantamount to life	Court maintained sentence proportionate to gravity, protection needs, and separate criminal incidents	Argues aggregate 56–120 years is unduly harsh and effectively life	Court held not an extreme circumstance; consecutive terms justified by separate acts and victim’s age; no excessive aggregate sentence.
Procedural sufficiency for appellate review of discretionary sentencing	Commonwealth relied on sentencing transcript and reasons provided	Defendant preserved claim via post-sentence motion and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement	Court accepted review; applied four-part Martin test and found substantial question, then denied relief on merits.

Key Cases Cited

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum facts must be found by jury)
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014) (applied Alleyne to Pennsylvania mandatory-minimum sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and appropriate factors)
Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592 (Pa. Super. 2016) (challenge to consecutive sentences and failure to consider rehabilitation can present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive sentences raise substantial question only in extreme circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (sentencing court is presumed aware of sentencing factors when provided a PSI)
Commonwealth v. Martin, 611 A.2d 731 (Pa. Super. 1992) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)