Com. v. Wampole, C., Com. v. Wampole, C. No. 71 MDA 2017

In March 2016 Coty W. Wampole committed multiple residential burglaries, taking electronics, jewelry, and cash; investigation led to his arrest.
In April 2016 he was charged with five burglaries, related trespass and theft counts; on December 2, 2016 he entered an open guilty plea to four burglary counts in exchange for withdrawal of remaining charges.
The court, with a PSI, sentenced Wampole to an aggregate 24 to 60 months’ incarceration followed by six years’ probation (individual consecutive and probationary terms across counts).
Wampole filed a post-sentence motion asking for electronic monitoring or concurrent sentences; the court denied relief and he appealed.
On appeal Wampole argued the trial court used an incorrect offense gravity score for one count (producing an aggravated-range sentence) and failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and the criteria in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).
The Superior Court found the gravity-score challenge was waived (not raised below) but held the preserved challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing did not merit relief because the record (PSI and oral reasons) showed consideration of required factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court used wrong offense gravity score at Count 4, producing aggravated-range sentence without adequate reasons	Wampole: court used incorrect offense gravity score for Count 4, causing an upward/deviated sentence without sufficient on-the-record reasons	Commonwealth: issue waived because not raised at sentencing or in post-sentence filings; sentencing record otherwise adequate	Waived: Wampole failed to preserve this claim, so appellate review not available
Whether sentence was imposed without meaningful consideration of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) factors and mitigating circumstances	Wampole: court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (lack of criminal history, age, circumstances) and protection/rehabilitation balance, rendering sentence manifestly unreasonable	Commonwealth: court had PSI, expressly discussed guidelines, offense seriousness, volume of crimes, defendant's acceptance of responsibility, and rehabilitative needs; electronic monitoring rejected with reasons	Rejected: preserved claim reviewed on merits; record and on-the-record statements show consideration of statutory factors, so no abuse of discretion

Lutes v. Commonwealth, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discretionary-aspect sentencing challenge standard)
Tirado v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (open plea preserves discretionary-sentencing appeals)
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary sentencing not appealable as of right)
Mouzon v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (Rule 2119(f) and separate statement requirement for discretionary-aspect sentencing appeals)
Riggs v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to consider § 9721(b) can present a substantial question)
Hyland v. Commonwealth, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for sentencing discretion; abuse of discretion defined)