Com. v. Wilson, L.
515 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Lois Wilson pled guilty Dec 2015 to delivery of a controlled substance and conspiracy (2014 info) and received 5 years intermediate punishment (first 6 months house arrest).
- While free on bail awaiting sentencing, between Nov 23–Dec 29, 2015, Wilson committed additional heroin deliveries and related offenses; she was charged on multiple 2016 informations.
- The court found a violation of intermediate punishment in July 2016, revoked IP and deferred sentencing on the new charges.
- Wilson pled guilty to the 2016 charges on Dec 1, 2016; on Feb 9, 2017 the court imposed consecutive standard-range terms (five 1–3 year terms and a 1.5–3 year IP-violation term), aggregating to 6½–18 years.
- Post-sentence motion denied; appeal argued the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive, asserting the court failed to account for rehabilitative needs and improperly imposed consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate sentence (6½–18 yrs) was manifestly excessive/abuse of discretion | Sentence excessive; court failed to consider rehabilitative needs (drug addiction, mental health, abuse history, low IQ) | Trial court considered PSI, rehabilitative factors, sentencing guidelines, nature of offenses and public protection | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
| Whether consecutive sentences were improper | Consecutive terms rendered sentence unduly harsh | Court properly exercised discretion under §9721, considered relevant factors and explained reasons for consecutive terms | Consecutive sentences appropriate; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and four-part test for discretionary sentencing issues)
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary sentencing not appealable as of right without procedural compliance)
- Swope v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (substantial question analysis for sentencing appeals)
- Bonner v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 592 (Pa. Super. 2016) (consecutive sentences + failure to consider rehabilitation can present substantial question)
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PSI presumed to provide the court with defendant’s background and mitigating factors)
- Perry v. Commonwealth, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences)