Com. v. Tilden, Jr., S.
Com. v. Tilden, Jr., S. No. 1494 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Appellant Scott W. Tilden pled guilty in Adams County to one count of second-degree felony robbery and was sentenced to 3–6 years' imprisonment on January 4, 2016.
- Tilden later pled guilty in Perry County to two additional second-degree felony robberies committed on Sept. 16 and Sept. 22, 2015; a separate robbery occurred in Adams County on Sept. 29, 2015.
- At sentencing in Perry County (Aug. 11, 2016), the court reviewed Tilden’s PSI and imposed 24–60 months on each Perry County count, to run consecutively to each other and to the Adams County sentence.
- Tilden appealed, arguing the Perry County sentences should run concurrently with the Adams County sentence because the robberies were part of a single crime spree driven by drug addiction.
- The Commonwealth contended the sentencing court acted within its discretion and argued Tilden’s Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement was deficient.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Tilden’s Rule 2119(f) statement failed to raise a substantial question for review; the sentences were within the guideline range and the robberies were distinct events with different victims and jurisdictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Perry County sentences should run concurrently with the Adams County sentence or may be ordered consecutive | Commonwealth: sentencing court acted within discretion; Tilden’s Rule 2119(f) statement is technically deficient | Tilden: sentences should run concurrently because robberies were a single crime spree tied to drug addiction; court failed to consider addiction as mitigating | Affirmed: Rule 2119(f) statement deficient; no substantial question for review; consecutive sentences permissible as crimes were separate and sentences were within guideline range |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Swop, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standards for invoking Superior Court jurisdiction on discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Naranjo, 53 A.3d 66 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requirements to show a substantial question that a sentence is inappropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive sentences within guideline ranges may raise substantial question only in limited circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. 2005) (excessive sentencing claim tied to failure to consider mitigating factors may raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI and relevant mitigating information)