Com. v. Smith, M., Com. v. Smith, M. No. 808 WDA 2016

Appellant Matthew Lee Smith committed a bank robbery in August 2015.
In March 2016 he pleaded guilty to one count of robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(vi)).
On April 27, 2016 he was sentenced to 36–72 months, consecutive to a Crawford County sentence.
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion which the trial court denied.
Appellant timely appealed, challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence as excessive and not properly individualized, with claimed mitigating factors ignored.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive and unreasonably individualized	Smith argues aggravation range, insufficient reasons, and ignored mitigating factors	Commonwealth contends sentence within guidelines and properly reasoned	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (review of discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part discretionary review framework)
Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial question standard for discretionary review)
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (substantial question framework for sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (aggravated-range sentence may raise substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prior convictions can supplement guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592 (Pa. Super. 2016) (court weighed guidelines and mitigating factors)
Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (pre-sentence report informs weighing of factors)