Com. v. Sibilly, J.
663 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Appellant Jahrell R. Sibilly, an inmate, sent two written letters to a prison unit manager threatening extreme torture and rape; he signed both with his inmate number and address.
- He admitted authorship, was charged with two counts of terroristic threats, and entered an open guilty plea to one count.
- On March 21, 2017 the trial court sentenced him to 9 months to 5 years’ imprisonment (within statutory maximum for a first‑degree misdemeanor).
- Appellant filed a late (untimely) counseled motion to modify sentence nunc pro tunc without explaining the delay; the trial court denied relief and Appellant appealed.
- Appellant argued the maximum five‑year term was excessive because parole was unlikely, likely causing him to serve the full term despite a guidelines range of restorative sanctions to nine months.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing 9 months–5 years | Five‑year maximum is excessive because Appellant likely will not be paroled and thus will effectively serve the full term; guideline range was much lower | Sentence is within statutory maximum and guidelines; parole decisions rest with PBPP and do not implicate sentencing norms; Appellant failed to timely preserve challenge | Appeal dismissed in part for procedural defect; on merits, no abuse of discretion — sentence affirmed |
| Whether discretionary sentencing claim was preserved | N/A (argues on appeal) | Appellant failed to file timely post‑sentence motion or secure express nunc pro tunc relief | Claim not properly preserved, barring discretionary review |
| Whether Appellant raised a substantial question to permit review | Argues sentence excessive due to parole prospects | Parole is PBPP authority and not a fundamental norm of sentencing; bald excessiveness claim insufficient | No substantial question shown; appellate review declined |
| Whether sentence was outside guidelines or clearly unreasonable | N/A | Sentence within guidelines and statutory cap; court considered PSI and victim impact; court stated reasons (gravity, victim impact, public protection) | Even if reviewed, no abuse of discretion; sentence stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Heaster, 171 A.3d 268 (Pa. Super. 2017) (four‑part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Batty, 169 A.3d 70 (Pa. Super. 2017) (requirements for nunc pro tunc post‑sentence motions)
- Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court must expressly grant nunc pro tunc relief; merits decision is not substitute)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 2005) (parole decisions are PBPP authority; expectation of non‑parole does not raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and appropriate factors)
- Commonwealth v. Bishop, 831 A.2d 656 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for what constitutes a substantial question on sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Brougher, 978 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 2009) (failure to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement waivable if Commonwealth does not object)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (dissenting opinions are not binding precedent)