Com. v. Weaver, A.
Com. v. Weaver, A. No. 925 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Aaron Jaden Weaver pled guilty (open plea) to theft by unlawful taking and criminal use of a communication facility. Sentenced April 28, 2016 to an aggregate term of 2.5 to 6 years, consecutive to a 2.5–5 year sentence he was already serving for robbery.
- Weaver filed a post-sentence motion arguing the sentence was excessive (within the aggravated guideline range) and that mitigating factors (youth programming success, difficult upbringing, lack of physical harm to victims) were underweighted; the court denied the motion.
- Weaver timely appealed; the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion addressing discretionary sentencing issues (no Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement required).
- On appeal Weaver challenged the discretionary aspects of the sentence, asserting it was excessive and referenced a prior acquittal at sentencing (the acquittal-related claim was not preserved and thus waived).
- The Superior Court applied the four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review (timeliness, preservation, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, and whether a substantial question was raised) and concluded Weaver failed to raise a substantial question warranting merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Weaver's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weaver's aggravated-range sentence was inappropriate/excessive | Sentence is too severe given mitigating factors (no physical harm, successful youth programming, difficult upbringing) | Sentence within guideline range and court considered PSI; no abuse of discretion | Court held Weaver failed to raise a substantial question; affirmed sentence |
| Whether referencing a prior acquittal rendered the sentence vindictive | Weaver argued court improperly considered an acquittal at sentencing | Commonwealth argued claim was not preserved; Robinson inapposite because this was not a resentencing after vacation/remand | Claim waived for appeal; not considered on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary aspects of sentencing not reviewable as of right)
- Austin v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review)
- Anderson v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2003) (substantial-question inquiry is case-by-case)
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.3d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial question requires showing sentence inconsistent with Code or norms)
- Mouzon v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (claims of excessiveness may raise a substantial question if adequately articulated)
- Ladamus v. Commonwealth, 896 A.2d 592 (Pa. Super. 2006) (mere claim that court failed to consider mitigators, without more, does not raise substantial question)
- Fullin v. Commonwealth, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and mitigating factors)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 931 A.3d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (limits on considering acquittals in resentencing contexts)
- Tapp v. Commonwealth, 997 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discussing Robinson and resentencing contexts)