Commonwealth v. Johnson
125 A.3d 822
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Between March 9–17, 2014, Stefon Johnson robbed three businesses with a small handgun; arrested March 18, 2014. Commonwealth later nolle prossed most counts; Johnson pled guilty to two counts of robbery on November 26, 2014.
- Presentence investigation (PSI) assigned Johnson a Prior Record Score of six points based on prior juvenile adjudications/convictions, and labeled him a Repeat Felony Offender (RFEL) under 204 Pa. Code § 303.4.
- At sentencing (Jan. 28, 2015) Johnson presented family character witnesses and asked for a concurrent low-end guideline sentence; counsel contested the RFEL designation.
- Sentencing court treated Johnson as RFEL, imposed concurrent terms of 102–204 months, ordered restitution and costs, and denied reconsideration.
- On appeal Johnson argued (1) the sentence was manifestly excessive/that mitigating factors were ignored, and (2) the RFEL designation was incorrect because § 303.4(a)(2) should require six prior convictions/adjudications (not six points).
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion in sentencing and interpreted § 303.4(a)(2) to mean six or more prior-record points (not six separate convictions).
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was manifestly excessive / court ignored mitigating factors | Sentence excessive given youth, rehabilitative potential and character testimony; court failed to weigh mitigating factors | Court had PSI, considered statutory factors and testimony; sentence within guidelines and not unreasonable | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
| Whether RFEL designation required six prior convictions/adjudications rather than six prior-record points | §303.4(a)(2) requires six prior convictions/adjudications (not six points); therefore RFEL label was improper | §303.4 read in context (with §§303.2, 303.7, 303.15, 303.16) shows categories are based on prior-record score points; RFEL applies at 6+ points | RFEL properly based on prior-record score points; designation valid and sentencing correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (excessive sentence claim coupled with failure to consider mitigating factors raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Seagraves, 103 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. 2014) (presumption that trial court considered PSI and relevant defendant information)
- Commonwealth v. Spence, 91 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for statutory construction questions of sentencing guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Gerald, 47 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2012) (use of plain statutory language to discern legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Kinney, 777 A.2d 492 (Pa. Super. 2001) (different statutory language in neighboring subsections signals differing legislative intent)