Com. v. Vasquez, L.
1827 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Luis Vasquez pled guilty to two counts of third-degree murder and was sentenced May 5, 2014 to consecutive standard-range terms of 15 to 40 years for each count.
- Vasquez did not file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal initially; he later filed a PCRA petition and the PCRA court restored his right to file a post-sentence motion.
- Vasquez filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence but did not supplement the original sentencing record.
- His sole appellate claim: the trial court abused its discretion by imposing standard-range sentences without properly considering mitigating factors (provocation and his lack of prior criminal history).
- The trial court explicitly discussed Vasquez’s clean prior record, the victims’ threats/loan-sharking, inconsistencies in Vasquez’s accounts, and concluded mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant a lesser sentence.
- The Superior Court affirmed, noting the sentence was within the standard guideline range and thus presumptively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vasquez preserved and presented a substantial question to challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence | Vasquez argued the court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider mitigating factors (provocation; lack of prior record) | Commonwealth argued Vasquez’s claim did not raise a substantial question and, in any event, the court considered mitigating factors | Court found technical compliance with preservation and Rule 2119(f) but held the claim did not present a substantial question; even if it did, no abuse of discretion — sentencing court considered mitigating and aggravating factors and imposed presumptively reasonable standard-range consecutive sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (definition of substantial question for discretionary-sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishing failure-to-consider-§9721 claims from generalized assertions that facts were not considered)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard-range guideline sentences are presumptively reasonable)