Commonwealth v. Bonner
135 A.3d 592
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Dante Alan Bonner pled guilty to multiple offenses arising from three incidents including attempted homicide and shooting at an officer (aggregate sentencing case 8568; two related cases ran concurrently).
- Police found heroin, a firearm, and marijuana under Bonner's seat in one incident; he also fired shots at an officer in another incident, injuring the officer.
- At sentencing the trial court calculated a prior record score of 5 based entirely on juvenile adjudications (including a juvenile aggravated assault and a juvenile firearms adjudication) under Pa. Sentencing Guidelines § 303.6.
- The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 39 to 78 years’ imprisonment on September 4, 2014; Bonner filed a timely post-sentence motion which was denied and then appealed.
- Bonner argued (1) that using juvenile adjudications to compute prior record score violates the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality principles and (2) that his sentence was the result of an abuse of discretion/was excessive given his juvenile-only criminal history.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it held § 303.6 constitutional under the Eighth Amendment and that the discretionary aspects of sentencing were not abused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using juvenile adjudications in prior record score violates Eighth Amendment proportionality | Bonner: juvenile adjudications differ from adult convictions (diminished culpability, different juvenile goals, no jury) and thus should not be used to enhance adult sentence severity | Commonwealth: Guidelines limit which juvenile adjudications count and are consistent with sentencing goals (recidivism, public protection); many jurisdictions permit such use | Court: § 303.6 is constitutional; use of certain juvenile adjudications to calculate prior record score does not violate Eighth Amendment |
| Whether the aggregate 39–78 year sentence was an abuse of discretion/excessive | Bonner: sentence excessive given that prior record was juvenile adjudications; trial court failed to adequately consider rehabilitation and sentenced consecutively | Commonwealth: court considered PSI, rehabilitative factors, gravity of offenses (attempted murder of officer), and denied volume discount; sentences were within guidelines | Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence within guidelines and not clearly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment proportionality framework for juvenile sentencing)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (limits on life without parole for juveniles; proportionality analysis)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions as sentencing factors exception)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (principles on facts increasing penalties and jury trial implications)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment forbids only grossly disproportionate sentences)
- United States v. Edwards, 734 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding inclusion of certain juvenile adjudications in criminal history computation)
- United States v. Orona, 724 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2013) (survey of state practices regarding juvenile adjudications in adult sentencing)