Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763

On July 16, 2010, Dominic Caldwell and an accomplice stole $2,000 from a neighbor’s apartment; Caldwell then fired two shots on a crowded street, injuring bystander Gail Floyd with debris.
Police later arrested Caldwell; a jury convicted him of aggravated assault, robbery, theft by unlawful taking, PIC, REAP, various firearms offenses, and the trial court convicted him of persons not to possess firearms.
The court sentenced Caldwell to consecutive terms producing an aggregate of 31–62 years’ imprisonment; Caldwell filed post-sentence motions and appealed.
Caldwell argued (1) the aggregate sentence was excessive because the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs and (2) the prosecutor’s closing-argument analogy (invoking jurors as hypothetical victims) required a mistrial.
The Superior Court found Caldwell preserved the sentencing claim, reviewed discretionary sentencing for abuse of discretion, and reviewed the mistrial claim for waiver and, alternatively, for harmlessness given the curative instruction.

Issue	Caldwell's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Discretionary aspects of sentencing (aggregate 31–62 yrs)	Sentence is excessive; court failed to consider rehabilitative needs; consecutive terms produce unduly harsh aggregate sentence	Court considered public safety, prior record, allocution, and rehabilitative steps; sentences within guideline ranges; consecutive terms appropriate given danger posed	Court held Caldwell raised a substantial question; on the merits no abuse of discretion — sentence affirmed
Mistrial based on prosecutor analogies placing jurors as victims	Prosecutor’s bank-robbery analogies (naming juror numbers) inflamed jurors and impermissibly cast jurors as victims; curative instruction inadequate	Objection was waived in part; analogies were generic, supported inference; trial court gave curative instruction accepted by defense; no prejudice warranting mistrial	Court found the claim waived in part and, even if preserved, not grounds for mistrial; judgment affirmed

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing court must consider protection of public, gravity of offense, and defendant’s rehabilitative needs)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (when consecutive within guidelines may still raise substantial question in extreme circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (excessiveness claim plus failure to consider mitigating factors can present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008) (failure to make contemporaneous objection waives claim)
Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (curative instructions can cure prosecutorial impropriety; mistrial is extraordinary)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (appellate review of sentencing reasonableness is flexible; individualized sentencing required)
Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. 2011) (vacating excessive aggregate sentence where court emphasized confinement without adequate individualized consideration)