Com. v. Whetstone, E.
693 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 6, 2017Background
- Appellant Edwin Whetstone pleaded guilty to retail theft (18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1)) for $212 and was subject to a standard guideline range of 6–16 months.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 36½ months to 7 years, well above the guideline range.
- Whetstone filed a post‑sentence motion for modification, which was denied, and timely appealed.
- On appeal he argued the trial court failed to give adequate reasons for departing from the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The Commonwealth objected to Whetstone’s brief because it lacked the Rule 2119(f) concise statement required for discretionary‑sentence challenges.
- The Superior Court held the omission waived review of the discretionary‑aspects claim, and alternatively concluded the sentence was reasonable because the court relied on public protection, rehabilitative needs, PSI information, drug abuse, and an extensive prior record in addition to guidelines factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by imposing an above‑guideline sentence without adequate reasons | Whetstone: trial court did not state proper aggravating factors; prior record alone is not a valid basis | Commonwealth/Trial court: sentence justified by public protection, rehab needs, PSI, drug abuse, and extensive criminal history used with other factors | Waived for failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement; alternatively, no abuse of discretion because multiple factors beyond mere guidelines-covered prior convictions supported the departure |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary aspects of sentencing not reviewable as of right)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 125 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement precludes review when Commonwealth objects)
- Commonwealth v. Minnich, 662 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 1995) (procedural requirements for appellate review of sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for abuse of sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (courts may consider prior convictions along with other extraneous information)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 829 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 2003) (limitations on relying solely on guideline‑included factors)
- Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 1999) (claim that court failed to state reasons for outside‑guideline sentence raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI information)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (trial court presumed aware of information in PSI)