Com. v. Wise, B., Com. v. Wise, B. No. 1735 WDA 2016

Brandon Marcus Wise pled guilty to multiple theft-related charges and one count of fleeing/eluding officers arising from five separate incidents involving stolen credit/debit cards and a high-speed chase.
He entered an open plea on Feb 25, 2016 for some counts; on May 16, 2016 he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in the remaining cases.
The trial court deferred sentencing for a PSI and on May 18, 2016 imposed an aggregate term of 63 to 174 months’ incarceration plus six years’ probation.
Wise filed a post-sentence motion arguing the sentence was excessive for failing to account for his mental illness, drug addiction, and acceptance of responsibility; the trial court denied the motion.
Wise appealed the discretionary aspects of his sentence, arguing the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and erred in imposing consecutive rather than concurrent terms.
The Superior Court affirmed, finding the sentencing court considered the PSI and relevant factors, reasonably imposed consecutive mitigated/standard-range terms, and did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Appellant's Argument (Wise)	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive/abuse of discretion	Sentence failed to account for Wise’s mental illness, need for treatment, drug addiction, and acceptance of responsibility	Sentencing court considered PSI, rehabilitative needs, public protection, and justified consecutive terms given multiple separate offenses	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed
Whether trial court erred by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences	Consecutive terms made the overall sentence unduly excessive	Court has discretion under §9721 to run sentences consecutively; no entitlement to a "volume discount"	Consecutive sentences permissible; trial court properly considered factors

Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing and abuse-of-discretion framework)
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
Swope v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (analysis of substantial question and rejection of "volume discount" for multiple offenses)
Bonner v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 592 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (holding that failure to consider rehabilitative needs plus imposition of consecutive sentences can raise a substantial question)
Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (PSI presumed to inform sentencing court of defendant’s character and mitigating factors)
Perry v. Commonwealth, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (trial court discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences)