Com. v. Waliyyuddin, M.
3650 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- On May 14–15, 2011, Appellant Marquise Waliyyuddin babysat three-month-old A.S.; the infant later suffered fatal head trauma consistent with abusive shaking.
- Appellant admitted shaking the infant and rocking a car seat so the baby’s head bounced; infant died after surgery; autopsy found subarachnoid/subdural hematomas and optic‑nerve hemorrhages.
- Appellant was convicted at a non‑jury trial of involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC); initially sentenced to an aggregate 5–10 years (concurrent 4–8 and 1–2 years).
- Superior Court vacated that sentence on appeal because involuntary manslaughter and EWOC merged for sentencing and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand the trial court resentenced Appellant to 5–10 years on the involuntary manslaughter count; Appellant appealed, challenging (1) use of victim’s age to depart above guidelines, (2) reliance on arrest history, and (3) excessiveness of the sentence.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court permissibly relied on the infant’s extreme youth (a subclass of the under‑12 category) and lawfully considered arrest history (noting no convictions), and that the above‑guidelines sentence was reasonable under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Trial Court / Commonwealth Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on victim’s age (already accounted for in grading/OGS) to justify an upward departure | Waliyyuddin: The Guidelines already account for victims under 12; using the victim’s precise age to justify an aggravated departure is impermissible "double counting." | Court/Commonwealth: The infant’s extreme youth (three months) is a particularly vulnerable subclass not fully accounted for by the under‑12 classification and may justify departure. | Affirmed — Permissible to consider the victim’s precise age as a basis for upward departure. |
| Whether the court improperly relied on Appellant’s arrest record as evidence of criminality and future risk | Waliyyuddin: Court improperly treated arrests (without convictions) as prior criminality to justify harsher sentence. | Court/Commonwealth: A sentencing court may consider prior arrests so long as it recognizes they are not convictions; here the court noted no convictions but six arrests. | Affirmed — Court permissibly considered arrest history, noting absence of convictions. |
| Whether the 5–10 year sentence is manifestly excessive / unreasonable | Waliyyuddin: Sentence exceeds aggravated guideline range and is excessive under the Sentencing Code. | Court/Commonwealth: Departure justified by gravity of conduct (vicious shaking of an infant), need to protect public, rehabilitative considerations, and non‑conviction arrest history; sentence not unreasonable. | Affirmed — Above‑guideline sentence was reasonable under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (a sentencing court may rely on a victim’s precise age within a broader statutory age class to justify an above‑guideline sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test and standards for raising discretionary‑aspect sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (sentencing court may not "double count" factors already accounted for in the guidelines)