Com. v. Soto, A.
445 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- Appellant Angel Luis Soto pled guilty on January 11, 2016 to two separate counts of delivery of a controlled substance arising from transactions on July 21, 2014 and November 2, 2014.
- A Presentence Investigation Report was prepared and reviewed.
- On November 10, 2016 the trial court sentenced Soto to 21–42 months on each count (the bottom of the standard guideline range) and ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate 42–84 months; 234 days’ credit was awarded for time served.
- Soto filed a timely post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of the sentence (arguing consecutive rather than concurrent terms produced an excessive sentence); the trial court denied relief on March 2, 2017.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was wholly frivolous; the court conducted an independent review.
- The Superior Court concluded Soto’s challenge did not raise a substantial question under the Sentencing Code and affirmed the judgment of sentence, granting counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences and whether the aggregate sentence is excessive | Soto argued consecutive sentences produced an excessive aggregate term and were an abuse of discretion | The Commonwealth argued the sentences were within the guideline ranges and the trial court acted within its discretion | Court held Soto did not raise a substantial question; consecutive sentences at the guideline floor were not unduly harsh; judgment affirmed and Anders withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Mastromarino v. Commonwealth, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing generally not a substantial question)
- Lamonda v. Commonwealth, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (consecutive sentences raise a substantial question only in extreme circumstances)
- Swope v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consecutive guideline sentences rarely present substantial question absent clear unreasonableness)
- Prisk v. Commonwealth, 13 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011) (key inquiry is whether aggregate sentence appears excessive on its face)