Com. v. Vogt, V.
833 WDA 2024
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Vicki Lee Vogt was charged in 2022 with multiple felonies and misdemeanors arising from alleged physical and sexual abuse of her three minor grandchildren in 2013.
- Vogt pleaded nolo contendere to three counts each of endangering the welfare of a child and indecent assault.
- On April 12, 2024, she was sentenced to 63 to 216 months’ incarceration, with consecutive sentences imposed for each count.
- The trial court considered factors such as Vogt’s age, health, minimal criminal record, the victims’ young ages, and the nature and impact of the abuse.
- Vogt appealed, raising only the discretionary aspects of her sentence, claiming that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence that did not adequately consider mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Vogt's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessiveness of Sentence | Sentence unreasonable given age, health, time elapsed, and lack of recent contact | Court considered all relevant factors; sentence justified | Court did not abuse discretion; affirmed |
| Consideration of Mitigating Factors | Court ignored her poor health and advanced age; only punishment was considered | Presentence report and record show all were considered | Record shows proper consideration; affirmed |
| Consecutive versus Concurrent Terms | Aggregate sentence excessive; consecutive sentences not warranted | Separate, serious offenses against three victims | Consecutive sentences appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (sets forth discretionary aspects of sentencing and jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explains substantial question and standards for reviewing discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (details the four-part analysis for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discusses preservation requirements for sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (clarifies what constitutes a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302 (Pa. Super. 2022) (outlines standard for reviewing aggregate sentences for reasonableness)