Com. v. Wolf, M.
125 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Mark Wolf pled guilty to two counts of retail theft and one count of receiving stolen property on November 12, 2015; the receiving charge merged for sentencing.
- The court imposed consecutive terms of 9–18 months on each retail-theft count, for an aggregate sentence of 18–36 months’ incarceration.
- The offenses involved multiple shoplifting incidents at Giant Food stores in Bucks County (various dates in July–August 2015), with stolen items totaling several hundred dollars across incidents.
- At sentencing the Commonwealth emphasized Wolf’s lengthy prior record (prior record score of five, including burglary, DUI convictions, and prior retail theft) and a pattern tied to long-term drug abuse.
- Mitigating evidence consisted mainly of Wolf’s acceptance of responsibility, waiver of preliminary hearing, and brief participation in a treatment program while incarcerated; the court found treatment was prompted by incarceration rather than voluntary rehabilitation.
- Wolf filed a timely post-sentence motion and appeal, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating evidence and by double-counting factors already reflected in the sentencing guidelines when imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive standard-range sentences (aggregate 18–36 months) by failing to consider mitigating evidence and double-counting factors in the guidelines | Commonwealth: sentence is within the guidelines, court considered mitigation and defendant’s treatment was inadequate; consecutive sentences justified by defendant’s criminal history and risk to reoffend | Wolf: court ignored or insufficiently considered mitigating evidence and relied on factors already accounted for in the guidelines (double-counting) when imposing consecutive sentences | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion. The record shows the court considered mitigating evidence, relied on defendant’s extensive criminal history and risk of reoffense, and imposed standard-range consecutive sentences that were reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discusses discretionary aspects of sentencing and appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requirement for separate Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement when challenging discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (double-counting prior record can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (consecutive sentences rarely raise a substantial question except in extreme circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (standard of appellate review for sentencing—abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Klueber, 904 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2006) (standard-range consecutive sentences may be reasonable where court relies on defendant’s prior history and risk to reoffend)