Com. v. Yurcich-Shannon, T.
655 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- Teresa M. Yurcich Shannon (Appellant) was the getaway driver in an armed robbery of Marco’s Pizza on Aug 26, 2015; arrested and charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.
- Appellant entered an open guilty plea to conspiracy to commit robbery (first-degree felony) on Feb 18, 2016; robbery charge was nolle prossed by the Commonwealth.
- On Apr 7, 2016 the trial court, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, sentenced Appellant to 24 to 60 months’ imprisonment (minimum of 24 months within the guideline standard range of 18–30 months).
- Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions claiming the sentence was excessive; motions were denied and she appealed.
- Appellant argued the sentence was excessive because (1) her co-defendant received a lower minimum term, (2) she had acknowledged her error and was unlikely to reoffend, and (3) she had an infant child dependent on others for care.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the sentence was within the guidelines, the court had considered the PSI and mitigating factors, and Appellant’s higher prior record score justified a longer minimum term than her co-defendant’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion / manifestly excessive | Shannon: sentence (24–60 months) is excessive, not tailored to rehabilitation, harsher than co-defendant | Commonwealth: sentence within guideline range; court considered PSI and factors; prior record justifies sentence | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentence within standard range and court considered relevant factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural requirements for discretionary-sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (requirements for Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638 (Pa. Super. 2011) (manifestly excessive sentence raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for sentencing discretionary abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard-range sentence reviewed with PSI is presumed appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentences within guideline range are generally appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing must reflect protection of the public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitative needs)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (trial court presumed aware of relevant information when it reviews PSI)