Com. v. Streeter, C., Com. v. Streeter, C. No. 3092 EDA 2016

In November 2015 Kathleen Ferrigno reported five unauthorized Lowe’s charges totaling $713.69; surveillance showed her housemate Carl Streeter made the purchases using her credit card.
Streeter was charged with one count of access device fraud (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(1)).
On June 30, 2016 Streeter pled guilty to third-degree felony access device fraud and the trial court sentenced him to 3½ to 7 years (the statutory maximum), above the sentencing guidelines’ aggravated range.
The court ordered restitution to Ferrigno and Lowe’s and initially denied most of Streeter’s motion to modify sentence, but adjusted the RRRI minimum to 35 months.
Streeter appealed, arguing the upward deviation was an abuse of discretion and the court failed to state adequate reasons for departing above the aggravated guideline range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by imposing a sentence above the aggravated guideline range without adequate reasons	Streeter: sentence was excessive, deviated above aggravated range without legally sufficient on-the-record reasons	Commonwealth: trial court explained reasons (victimization of disabled victim, recidivism, lack of rehabilitation, public protection) and complied with statutory sentencing framework	Held: No abuse of discretion; court provided contemporaneous, adequate reasons for upward deviation
Whether sentence was manifestly excessive considering protection of public, victim/community gravity, and defendant’s rehabilitative needs	Streeter: court failed to weigh statutory sentencing factors and imposed unjust sentence	Commonwealth: court considered mental health, substance abuse, prior prison term, impact on victim/children, and need for longer term for rehabilitation and deterrence	Held: No; sentencing court considered relevant factors and articulated factual basis for departure

Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defines when a substantial question exists for discretionary-sentencing review)
Booze v. Commonwealth, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2008) (holding that failure to state adequate reasons for aggravated-range sentence raises a substantial question)
Bowen v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requires contemporaneous on-the-record statement when departing from guidelines and explains permissible grounds for deviation)
Mastromarino v. Commonwealth, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for sentencing; abuse of discretion defined)