Com. v. Sosna, B., Com. v. Sosna, B. No. 1920 EDA 2016

Background

Defendant Brian Sosna pled nolo contendere to one count of aggravated indecent assault of a child under 13 based on multiple incidents of sexual contact with his 5‑year‑old niece and a recorded confession.
Plea and PSI indicated repeated digital, oral, and genital contact; victim reportedly contracted herpes.
Sentencing guideline form: prior record score 1; offense gravity score 10; standard minimum range 30–42 months; aggravated range minimum 54 months; statutory maximum 10 years.
Trial court sentenced Sosna to the statutory maximum: 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment (60–120 months), consecutive to other sentences, with no contact with minors and required treatment.
Sosna filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the sentence deviated from the guidelines and sought modification; the court denied relief and he appealed claiming the sentence was excessive and that the court failed to state adequate reasons for the upward deviation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence (60–120 months) was manifestly excessive/unreasonable and an abuse of discretion	Commonwealth argued the sentence was supported by the facts, reports, and protection of the public	Sosna argued the sentence exceeded the guidelines without adequate reasons and requested reconsideration to be sentenced within the standard range	Court affirmed: sentence was within discretion; trial court considered guidelines, PSI, psychosexual evaluation, victim impact, and gave reasons for upward deviation
Whether defendant preserved claim that trial court failed to state reasons for upward deviation	N/A (issue concerns preservation)	Sosna argued reconsideration motion preserved challenge to deviation	Court held claim waived: motion did not specifically challenge sufficiency of reasons on the record for upward deviation
Whether defendant preserved challenge that sentence was excessive/unreasonable	N/A	Sosna’s motion argued sentence was above guideline range and asked for reconsideration	Court found this claim preserved and raising a substantial question because sentence exceeded aggravated guideline range
Whether trial court adequately considered statutory sentencing factors before deviating	Commonwealth implied court considered factors and reports	Sosna contended deviation was not justified by record	Held: trial court expressly considered nature of offense, defendant characteristics, PSI, psychosexual evaluation, victim impact, and need to protect public; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary sentencing claims do not entitle appellant to review as of right)
Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements to preserve discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (same as Austin regarding preservation framework)
Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (issue-waiver when motion for reconsideration fails to specify claim)
Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (waiver where appellant did not raise failure to state reasons for sentence on record)
Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 1999) (failure to state reasons for deviation raises substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (above‑guideline sentence presents substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for sentencing discretion)
Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that judge considered PSI when one exists)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (trial court presumed aware of relevant defendant information from PSI)
Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2011) (case‑by‑case substantial‑question analysis)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of substantial question for sentencing review)