Com. v. Ware, M., 2931 EDA 2015

On August 30, 2014, Ware allowed his unlicensed 15‑year‑old daughter to drive his car; the vehicle crashed, and three teen passengers died. Ware initially denied giving permission.
Two and a half months later police learned (via a statement from a friend) that Ware had authorized his daughter to take the vehicle.
Ware pled guilty to three counts of involuntary manslaughter and three counts of recklessly endangering another person; seven other charges were nolle prossed as part of the plea.
The statutory maximum exposure disclosed at plea: up to 21 years if sentences imposed consecutively.
At sentencing the court imposed aggravated‑range sentences (20–40 months each) on the three manslaughter counts and standard‑range terms on the REAP counts, all consecutive, for an aggregate term of 78–192 months.
Ware filed a post‑sentence motion and timely appealed, arguing his aggregate sentence was excessive and that the court improperly relied on his refusal to cooperate with police (a Fifth Amendment right) when aggravating his sentence.

Issue	Ware’s Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether the aggravated, consecutive sentences (aggregate 78–192 months) were manifestly excessive	Aggregate sentence was excessive given lack of intent, remorse, and mitigating factors; consecutive imposition unreasonable	Court considered facts, PSI, victim/family letters, found Ware did not accept responsibility and sentences were within guideline ranges	No abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed
Whether the court improperly penalized Ware for invoking the right against self‑incrimination / failing to cooperate with police	Court relied on Ware’s refusal to incriminate himself and lied to police; penalizing exercise of Fifth Amendment right	Court found Ware did not merely invoke the Fifth Amendment but lied and let his daughter take full blame for 60 days; considered lack of acceptance of responsibility as a legitimate sentencing factor	No constitutional violation; court permissibly considered Ware’s dishonesty and failure to take responsibility when imposing aggravated range

Allen v. Pennsylvania, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (four‑part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
Prisk v. Pennsylvania, 13 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011) (substantial‑question evaluation is case‑by‑case)
Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive within‑guideline sentences may present a substantial question only in extreme circumstances)
Dodge v. Commonwealth, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reliance on impermissible sentencing factors can raise a substantial question)
Roden v. Commonwealth, 730 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 1999) (impermissible factors at sentencing can warrant review)
Buterbaugh v. Commonwealth, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing abuse of discretion)
Berry v. Commonwealth, 785 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 2001) (generally, failure to weigh specific mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question)