Com. v. Turner, S., 3046 EDA 2016

Shawn Turner pled guilty in six consolidated cases for multiple first‑degree robberies, related conspiracies, and weapons‑related misdemeanors committed in April–May 2014.
He was 18 at the time of most offenses; some robberies occurred while he remained under juvenile supervision.
Sentencing was deferred for a PSI and mental‑health evaluation; guidelines ranges per count were roughly 48–60 months (robbery) and 36–48 months (conspiracy).
At sentencing Turner (then 20 and incarcerated two years) acknowledged responsibility, apologized, and urged mercy citing youth, drug dependency, education, and family support.
The trial court emphasized the number and violent pattern of offenses, concluded Turner was not amenable to supervision, and imposed an aggregate sentence of 17½ to 35 years (consecutive and concurrent terms across dockets).
Turner filed a post‑sentence motion and appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and the court failed adequately to weigh mitigating factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Turner's aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive / an abuse of discretion	Turner: sentence inconsistent with protection of public, gravity of offenses, and rehabilitative needs; court failed to adequately consider youth, acceptance of responsibility, drug dependency, mental health, juvenile origin of prior record	Trial court/Commonwealth: court considered PSI, allocution, guidelines, and mitigating factors but found pattern of violent offenses, lack of amenability to supervision, and need to protect community warranted lengthy, partly consecutive sentences	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered statutory factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and relied on PSI; sentence appropriate

Commonwealth v. Hunter, 768 A.2d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2001) (discusses reviewability of discretionary sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (defendant who pleads open guilty plea may challenge discretionary aspects of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question for appellate review of sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to consider sentencing criteria may present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claims of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors often do not raise substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing and abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (PSI establishes trial court's awareness of defendant's background and mitigating factors)
Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2005) (reliance on PSI supports presumption that court weighed mitigating factors)