Commonwealth v. Dodge
77 A.3d 1263
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Dodge was convicted on 40 counts of receiving stolen property, plus two burglary, two criminal trespass, and several misdemeanor drug offenses after police recovered extensive stolen jewelry, firearms, and other items at his home and car.
- Police encountered him at his residence following an automobile accident; after he exited, officers secured a search warrant and found substantial items including jewelry, lock-picking tools, weapons, and electronics.
- Dodge fled Pennsylvania and was arrested in 2000 in Lancaster County while driving a stolen vehicle.
- On remand after multiple prior vacaturs, a new judge resentenced Dodge to 40 years, seven months to 81 years and two months, with numerous consecutive counts but no prison term for the drug offenses.
- Dodge challenged the sentence as a discretionary appeal, raising four related issues about sentencing norms, permissible factors, consecutiveness, and reliance on prior panels’ pronouncements.
- The Superior Court ultimately affirmed the sentence, holding that the consecutive, low-end guideline-range terms for a career burglar with many victims did not constitute an abuse of discretion, while the dissent criticized the decision as defying prior remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion under § 9781(c). | Dodge argues the consecutive, life-like term was clearly unreasonable and failed to consider rehabilitative needs and offense gravity. | Wecht contends the court weighed appropriate factors and that the sentence falls within guidelines given multiple victims and lengthy criminal history. | No error; sentence affirmed; substantial questions acknowledged but merits upheld. |
| Whether the court relied on impermissible factors in sentencing. | Dodge claims lack of cooperation or admission to other offenses improperly influenced length. | Wecht: court did not base sentence solely on remorse or lack of cooperation; other factors supported the length. | No reversible error; factors cited were proper and not sole basis for the sentence. |
| Whether consecutive sentences for multiple receiving stolen property offenses were improper. | Dodge asserts double-counting; argues concurrent sentences should apply due to non-violent nature and single overarching offense. | Wecht: multiple victims and scope justify consecutive terms; not inherently double-counting and not clearly unreasonable. | Not an abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences upheld. |
| Whether the court ignored our prior decisions in imposing a near-virtual life sentence. | Dodge argues law-of-the-case and prior reversals require a less severe outcome. | Wecht: prior decisions guide but do not bar a different discretionary outcome; current sentence not clearly unreasonable. | No reversible error; law-of-the-case not controlling to bar the current sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (excessiveness claim may raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d 1198 (Pa.Super.2008), 957 A.2d 1198 (Pa.Super.2008) (excessive aggregate sentence review; prior remand guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzale-Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa.Super.2010) (excessive aggregate sentence inquiry; authority on substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa.Super.2010) (substantial question determined by aggregate sentence framework)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa.Super.2010) (extreme circumstances may raise substantial question for excessiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa.Super.2000) (2119(f) practical application in substantial question analysis)