Com. v. Vanmatre, E.
Com. v. Vanmatre, E. No. 2478 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Erin VanMatre pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery of an elderly woman after following the victim from Rite Aid to her residence and causing the victim to lose her purse, wallet, and cash.
- Trial court sentenced VanMatre to 24 to 84 months’ imprisonment on July 12, 2016, after considering a PSI report.
- Appellant filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider; the court denied without a hearing on July 15, 2016.
- Appellant timely appealed and raised a discretionary-sentencing challenge to the departure from the guidelines.
- The sentencing guideline range for conspiracy to commit robbery was 6–16 months, with an aggravated range up to 19 months; the court departed to 24–84 months.
- On review, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the departure from guidelines was justified. | VanMatre argues the court failed to justify the departure. | The court relied on aggravating factors and the nature of the offense. | Yes, justified; court provided reasons for departure. |
| Whether the discretionary sentencing issue was properly preserved and reviewable given the 2119(f) requirement. | Appellant complied with preservation; the 2119(f) statement was missing. | Commonwealth did not object to the missing 2119(f). | Issue not waived; substantial question exists for review. |
| Whether the record supported the departure under 42 Pa.C.S. §9721(b) and related standards. | Aggravating factors warranted departure. | Aggravating factors do not automatically justify departure. | Record supported departure; court acted within its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary-review framework for challenging a sentence outside guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Hoch, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (requirements for appellate review of sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 737 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (unreasonable sentence when outside guideline ranges constitutes substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (guidelines advisory; permissible departure with reasons)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (consideration of defendant's character in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 650 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 1994) (defendant's age and prior conduct as aggravating factors)
- Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. 2001) (gravity of offense and impact on victim as sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Darden, 531 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 1987) (elderly-victim aggravating factor may justify departure)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 640 A.2d 917 (Pa. Super. 1994) (standard for evaluating substantial question in departure cases)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 741 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 1999) (en banc considerations in sentencing review)