Commonwealth v. Austin
66 A.3d 798
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant convicted of 96 counts of possession of child pornography; aggregate sentence originally 72–192 years, later vacated as manifestly excessive and remanded.
- On remand (1/13/2012), court reviewed presentence reports, psychological and psychosexual evaluations, and letters; judge found high risk, need for intensive treatment, and lack of amenability to rehabilitation.
- Sentence on remand: 35–70 years aggregate; 49 counts run concurrently, 46 counts consecutive, plus 6–12 months consecutive on remaining count; rape of a child offense sentenced separately.
- Court acknowledged totality of offender and offenses, noted HIV status, pattern of escalation, and need to protect the public, while stating not issuing life sentence.
- Appellant challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing as manifestly excessive; panel reviews for substantial question and abuse of discretion, ultimately affirming.
- Judgment affirmed by the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate sentence is manifestly excessive | Austin argues aggregate too harsh given conduct | Austin contends volume discount and excessive consecutive terms | No abuse; aggregate not manifestly excessive |
| Whether trial court properly exercised discretion under totality of circumstances | Austin asserts error in balancing factors | Austin relies on prior remand guidance; court considered multiple reports | Discretion exercised within bounds; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2008) (extreme consecutive sentences scrutinized for excessiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, No. 1092 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super. filed 2011) (unpublished memo; discussed remand for re-sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011) (substantial question standard for discretionary review; volume of counts not per se substantial)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive counts; discretionary review limits)
- Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012 (en banc)) (extreme aggregate sentences may raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentencing discretion; abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) (timeliness of post-sentence motions; filing by fax acceptable under rules)