Com. v. Westbrooks, C., 1533 WDA 2018

On June 14, 2013, Christopher Westbrooks shot Allen Parker Newton five times (three shots to the back, two to the chest); Newton suffered life‑threatening, long‑term injuries and multiple surgeries.
Westbrooks was convicted following a non‑jury trial of aggravated assault, persons not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and recklessly endangering another person.
At sentencing (Jan. 21, 2015) the court imposed an aggregate term of 130 to 260 months (standard‑range on the aggravated‑assault count plus consecutive firearm possession time and concurrent terms on other counts).
Westbrooks did not file a direct appeal; in 2017 he filed a pro se letter alleging counsel failed to file an appeal; the PCRA court reinstated his post‑sentence and direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc.
After the PCRA reopening, Westbrooks filed a post‑sentence motion challenging his sentence (denied), then timely appealed, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive because the court failed to consider mitigating/rehabilitative factors and impermissibly "double‑counted" factors already in the guidelines.
The Superior Court found that, although Westbrooks raised a substantial question, the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the record shows consideration of § 9721(b) factors, reliance on the seriousness of the offense and prior firearm history was appropriate, and the imposition of standard‑range sentences was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive/discretionary aspects	Westbrooks: court ignored remorse, work/family, rehabilitative needs; double‑counted offense seriousness and prior record already in guidelines; failed to individualize sentence	Commonwealth/Trial Ct: court considered required § 9721(b) factors, rehabilitative needs, presentence report; used prior record and offense gravity properly; imposed standard‑range, not inflated, sentence	Affirmed — substantial question raised but no abuse of discretion; sentence supported by record and justified for public protection and rehabilitation

Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary‑aspects review standards)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four‑part test for appellate review of sentencing discretion)
Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (preservation rule for discretionary‑sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial‑question inquiry case‑by‑case)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Moury on sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for substantial question and sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (failure to consider § 9721(b) can present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 829 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 2003) (claims of double‑counting as substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Rush, 162 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court need not recite statute on record; whole record must show consideration)
Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (permitted use of prior convictions as extraneous information to supplement guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598 (Pa. Super. 2004) (waiver of discretionary‑sentencing claims not raised in post‑sentence motion)