Com. v. Vasquez-Bonilla, R.
Com. v. Vasquez-Bonilla, R. No. 548 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- Appellant Randy V. Vasquez-Bonilla pled guilty in 2010 to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute (PWID) and received intermediate punishment plus probation.
- While on that probation, he committed a separate attempted murder ( January 2014 conviction) and received 10–20 years plus five years’ probation.
- The trial court found Appellant in violation of his earlier probation and, on January 14, 2016, imposed an aggregate revocation sentence of 20–40 years, consecutive to the attempted-murder sentence.
- Appellant filed a post-sentence motion asserting the sentence was excessive and above aggravated range; the trial court denied relief and Appellant appealed.
- On appeal, Appellant argued the VOP court failed to consider factors required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and therefore abused its discretion.
- The Superior Court found an unpreserved discretionary-appeal claim but identified a nonwaivable legality error: the court had applied the recidivist enhancement statute, 35 P.S. § 780-115, to a conspiracy conviction, which Pennsylvania law prohibits; the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VOP court abused its discretion by imposing 20–40 years consecutive without considering § 9721(b) factors | Court neglected to consider particular circumstances and Appellant’s character, remorse, rehabilitative potential; sentence was excessive | Sentence within statutory limits; trial court relied on Appellant’s criminal conduct and danger | Waived for appellate review (Appellant failed to preserve specific § 9721(b) arguments in lower court) |
| Whether discretionary-review requirements satisfied to permit appellate review | Appellant maintained timely post-sentence motion and Rule 2119(f) statement | Commonwealth argued many sentencing claims were unpreserved or insufficient | Appellant met procedural filing requirements but many substantive sentencing claims were unpreserved/insufficient to present a substantial question |
| Whether application of 35 P.S. § 780-115 (recidivist enhancement) to conspiracy was legal | Not raised below; issue surfaced on appeal | Commonwealth conceded trial court applied enhancement; court should review legality sua sponte | Illegal: enhancement does not apply to conspiracy; sentence exceeded statutory maximum for that count; judgment vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
| Whether Superior Court had jurisdiction to review all challenged sentences | Appellant limited appeal to certain docket numbers | Commonwealth argued missing docket prevented review of one judgment | Court lacked jurisdiction over the one docket not included in the notice of appeal; relief limited to appealed dockets |
Key Cases Cited
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (en banc) (scope of review from revocation includes discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (four-part test for jurisdiction over discretionary sentencing issues)
- Young v. Commonwealth, 922 A.2d 913 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (recidivist enhancement under 35 P.S. § 780-115 does not apply to conspiracy convictions)
- Trippett v. Commonwealth, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (bald claims of excessiveness insufficient to permit discretionary review)
- McNeal v. Commonwealth, 120 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for probation revocation sentencing)