Commonwealth v. Raven
97 A.3d 1244
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Raven appeals June 10, 2013 judgments of sentence following convictions in two Luzerne County cases for AIDPI, AIDPI while not properly licensed, DWS–DUI related, habitual offender, careless driving, tampering with evidence, and related offenses.
- Sept. 2, 2012, Raven allegedly caused a fatal accident while his license was suspended; vehicle washed within 12 hours and later seized with damage consistent with the crash.
- Raven had a prior case (3629-2012) arising from an undercover drug buy; May 3, 2012, Raven pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance in 3629-2012.
- At sentencing (June 10, 2013), the court imposed consecutive sentences within the standard range, totaling 78 to 300 months.
- Raven moved for post-sentence relief arguing lack of merger of AIDPI (not properly licensed) with DWS–DUI related and habitual offender offenses and challenging excessiveness due to mitigating factors.
- This Court reviews merger de novo and discretionary sentencing for abuse of discretion; consolidated appeals were considered sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AIDPI not properly licensed, DWS–DUI related, and habitual offender convictions merge for sentencing | Raven argues these offenses should merge under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9765. | Commonwealth contends no merger because elements differ and each offense has unique elements. | Sentences do not merge; no overlapping elements requiring consolidation. |
| Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive and fails to consider sentencing criteria | Court failed to weigh mitigating evidence and Raven's health, reputation, and cooperation. | Court carefully considered evidence; within guidelines and within discretion. | Sentence affirmed as reasonable and within guideline range; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (plain-language merger limits under Section 9765; preserves individualized sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 815 (Pa. 2006) (discussed Jones lead/hybrid approach to merger under 9765)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. 2007) (adopted Newman approach to merger post-9765)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (substantial-question standard for discretionary review)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption courts considered mitigating evidence when PSIR exists)