Commonwealth v. Corley
31 A.3d 293
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- May 6, 2008, near Joker's Bar in Allentown, a shootout wounded two individuals.
- Witnesses identified Corley as the driver; Royale held a shotgun in the accompanying car.
- Corley claimed an unknown man threatened him, leading him to retrieve a shotgun with Royale from Royale's home.
- Corley and Royale returned to the bar area; twenty-eight shell casings of various calibers were recovered.
- Corley pled guilty to one count of criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; sentenced April 20, 2009 to seven to fourteen years.
- After reconsideration, Corley was resentenced June 26, 2009 to sixty-nine months to twelve years; counsel withdrew without appointing counsel for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary-sentencing appeal raises a substantial question | Corley argues the sentence was unduly harsh and biased. | Commonwealth contends no substantial question is presented and the sentence is within bounds. | Appellate court finds a substantial question and reviews merits. |
| Whether the sentence is harsh and manifestly excessive | Sentence exceeded guidelines and showed bias against Corley. | Court acted within statutory factors and weighed circumstances; no bias. | Sentence affirmed; not unduly harsh or biased. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part discretionary-sentencing analysis prerequisites)
- Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (substantial-question standard prerequisites for discretionary review)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009) (reinstatement of direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc did not automatically include post-sentence motions)
- Commonwealth v. Fransen, 986 A.2d 154 (Pa. Super. 2009) (distinguishable groundwork on nunc pro tunc relief for post-conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard-range sentence with PSI; need not be deemed excessive)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (weighing factors with pre-sentence information in sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (consideration of mitigating factors in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (guidelines and statutory factors in review of reasonable sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (rare reversal of standard-range sentence for unreasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bias in sentencing implicates fundamental norms underlying sentencing)