Com. v. Sullivan, J., Com. v. Sullivan, J. No. 3871 EDA 2016

James Sullivan pled guilty in Wayne County to multiple offenses across two dockets: possession with intent to deliver, criminal trespass, possessing instruments of crime, resisting arrest (Docket No. 307-2016), and criminal conspiracy (theft) (Docket No. 314-2016).
On November 3, 2016, the court sentenced Sullivan to 63–144 months (concurrent to an earlier docket) for Docket 307 and 12–24 months consecutive to Docket 307 for Docket 314, for an aggregate of 75–168 months.
Sullivan filed a timely post‑sentence motion to modify and a timely appeal raising discretionary‑sentencing challenges; the trial court denied the motion and the Superior Court considered the appeal.
Sullivan argued the consecutive, near‑maximum standard‑range sentences were excessive, citing his prior record score, addiction, acceptance of responsibility, and rehabilitative needs.
The Superior Court applied the four‑part Moury test for discretionary‑sentencing appeals, found Sullivan met the procedural requirements and presented a substantial question, and reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion.
The Court concluded the sentences were within the standard guideline ranges, the trial court considered the PSI and mitigating factors, and no abuse of discretion was shown; it affirmed the judgments of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive near‑maximum standard‑range sentences (aggregate 75–168 months) were excessive and an abuse of discretion	Sullivan: Sentences are overly harsh given his prior record score (5), addiction, acceptance of responsibility, and rehabilitative needs	Commonwealth/Trial Court: Sentences are within the guideline standard range; court considered PSI, criminal history, character, and mitigation when imposing sentence	Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; sentences within standard range and trial court considered relevant factors

Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discusses limits on appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)
W.H.M. v. Commonwealth, 932 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discretionary‑sentence challenges treated as petitions for allowance of appeal)
Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (cited for components of Moury analysis)
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (when a sentencing claim raises substantial question)
Swope v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consecutive sentences plus alleged failure to consider rehabilitation can present substantial question)
Fullin v. Commonwealth, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Guth v. Commonwealth, 735 A.2d 709 (Pa. Super. 1999) (trial court must consider defendant's character, offense circumstances, public protection, gravity of offense, and rehabilitation)
Griffin v. Commonwealth, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (factors for sentencing: prior record, age, personal characteristics, potential for rehabilitation)
Ahmad v. Commonwealth, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (examining Rule 2119(f) statement to determine if substantial question exists)
Dalberto v. Commonwealth, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1994) (an open guilty plea does not forfeit challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence)