Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494

Commonwealth appeals a sentence of 11.5 to 23 months imprisonment concurrent to another term, followed by five years probation, after Appellee pled no contest to two counts of aggravated assault and possession of an instrument of crime.
Appellee faced up to forty-five years in prison; the factual basis describes two brutal stabbings resulting in serious injuries to two unarmed victims.
Pre-sentence report shows Appellee had a prior record score of 3, prior drug and weapons offenses, and was on probation when the current crimes occurred.
Guidelines would have required a standard range for each aggravated assault of roughly 4.5 to 6 years, plus/minus adjustments; the court imposed a fraction of the minimum range.
The sentencing court cited plea, remorse, drug/alcohol influence, youth, and family support as reasons for a drastic downward departure.
The Commonwealth moved for reconsideration; the court’s later proffers revealed additional details (e.g., weapon used) and the victims’ condition, but the appeal challenges the leniency as unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the sentence an unreasonable departure from the guidelines?	Commonwealth argues the sentence was excessively lenient and unsupported by the record.	Appellee contends the court properly considered mitigating factors and accepted responsibility.	Yes; sentence vacated and remanded for re-sentencing.
Did the court properly apply the § 9781(d) factors in granting a drastic downward departure?	Commonwealth asserts the court relied on improper factors and ignored seriousness and history.	Appellee asserts the court weighed factors appropriately and considered personal circumstances.	No; the downward departure was irrational and unsound; remand required.

Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (2007) (defines review scope for discretionary sentencing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781)
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 971 A.2d 1121 (2009) (downward departure analysis for first-degree felonies; drug use not sole justification)
Commonwealth v. Cleveland, 528 A.2d 219 (1987) (leniency based on addiction insufficient to override offense severity and history)