Commonwealth v. Disalvo
70 A.3d 900
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Cristino Disalvo was stopped for a defective taillight and cited after police learned his operator’s license was suspended.
- A magisterial district judge convicted him of driving under suspension (DUS) on September 5, 2012; this was at least his fourth DUS conviction.
- The judge sentenced Disalvo to 30 days’ county imprisonment, with electronic monitoring eligibility after five days; Disalvo appealed to the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas.
- At the summary appeal hearing, Disalvo admitted the offense; the trial court reimposed a 30-day term but made him eligible for electronic monitoring for the entire term.
- Disalvo argued on appeal that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating facts (he was driving to obtain medication for his partner and was stopped for a taillight defect).
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Disalvo raised a substantial question and, on the merits, whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence’s discretionary aspects are reviewable | Disalvo: Sentence is manifestly excessive; court ignored mitigating circumstances. | Commonwealth: Appeal must satisfy timeliness, preservation, Rule 2119(f), and raise a substantial question. | Court: Appeal met procedural requirements, so review proceeds. |
| Whether inadequate consideration of mitigation raises a substantial question | Disalvo: Failure to consider that he was driving for a medical need and stopped for a minor equipment violation. | Commonwealth: Inadequate-weight claims generally do not raise a substantial question. | Court: Such claims do not present a substantial question for review. |
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion on the merits | Disalvo: 30 days is excessive given circumstances. | Commonwealth: Sentence is within statutory range and based on repeated violations and vehicle condition; electronic monitoring granted. | Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered mitigation and acted within sentencing discretion. |
| Whether statute authorized imprisonment for repeat DUS | Disalvo: (implied) imprisonment excessive. | Commonwealth: 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6503 authorizes imprisonment up to six months for second/subsequent offenders. | Court: Statute permits such a sentence; 30 days lawful and not excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test for review of discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of a substantial question for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (claims that court inadequately weighed mitigating factors do not raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Kraft, 737 A.2d 755 (Pa. Super. 1999) (same: inadequate consideration of mitigation in DUS context does not present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for abuse of sentencing discretion)