Commonwealth v. Hill
66 A.3d 365
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Appellant Hill pled guilty open to three counts of aggravated assault and one firearms charge in 2011 stemming from a June 12, 2011 shooting; the court imposed consecutive ten-to-twenty year terms for the three aggravated assaults and five-to-ten years for the firearm offense; the aggregate sentence was 35–70 years; victim testimony showed Erwin was injured requiring gastric tube and multiple surgeries, Hein was shot in the arm and unable to braid hair; the sentencing hearing occurred October 26, 2011; Hill petitioned for reconsideration which the court denied; this court vacated and remanded for resentencing and remand proceedings; Hill challenged discretionary aspects of sentencing and the adequacy of a pre-sentence mental health evaluation; the opinion analyzes whether Hill raised a substantial question to permit review and whether the court properly explained the deviation from guidelines on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill raised a substantial question to review the discretionary sentence. | Hill (Appellant) argues sentence exceeds guidelines and norms. | Commonwealth argues no substantial question; sentence within statutory max and justified. | Yes, Hill raised a substantial question to review the discretionary sentence. |
| Whether the court's failure to obtain a complete mental health evaluation before sentencing raises a substantial question. | Appellant asserts missing complete mental health evaluation undermines sentencing reasoning. | Commonwealth contends no authority showing substantial question from missing full mental health eval. | Remand solely on the discretionary issue; mental health valuation question not resolved on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa.Super.2005) (guidelines departure must be supported by on-record reasons for deviation)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa.2002) (excessive within statutory limits may raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa.Super.2003) (bald allegations do not raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa.Super.2008) (rule 2119(f) adequacy and substantial question standard guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa.Super.2005) (remorse and lack of prior record can support departure and substantial question)