Commonwealth v. Serrano
150 A.3d 470
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Michael Serrano was convicted in 2011 of PWID, conspiracy to PWID, and criminal use of a communication facility; original aggregate sentence was 31–82 years.
- On appeal the delivery conviction was vacated (verdict slip error) and the case was remanded for resentencing; resentencing produced a 26–52 year aggregate term.
- Serrano’s sentence was later vacated as illegal because it included a mandatory minimum under the scheme invalidated by Alleyne; the case was remanded again for resentencing.
- A different judge (Judge Sullivan) resentenced Serrano in 2016 to essentially the same aggregate sentence and stated he was deferring to the intent of the deceased prior judge rather than conducting an independent assessment.
- Serrano filed post-sentence motions and appealed, arguing the court failed to consider rehabilitation/individualized factors, improperly deferred to the prior judge, relied solely on seriousness of the offense, and improperly imposed consecutive statutory maximums.
Issues
| Issue | Serrano's Argument | Commonwealth / Sentencing Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court failed to consider rehabilitation and §9721(b) factors | Serrano: court ignored evidence of rehabilitation, needs, and public protection leading to excessive sentence | Court suggested it reviewed PSI but effectively deferred to prior judge’s intent | Substantial question raised; court did not resolve on merits because remand granted on other ground |
| Sentencing judge improperly relied on prior judge and failed independent review | Serrano: new judge must "start afresh" at resentencing and weigh new evidence (Jones) | Judge Sullivan: role was to determine prior judge’s intent and reimpose sentence | Held for Serrano — court abused discretion by mechanically reimposing sentence; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Court sentenced based solely on seriousness of offense | Serrano: sentencing focused on offense gravity without individualized analysis | Court emphasized seriousness and prior judge’s presumed intent | Substantial question recognized; relief granted on independent-review ground, not separately decided |
| Imposition of consecutive statutory maximums (disparity with co-defendant) | Serrano: consecutive max terms excessive and could create disparity with co-defendant | Commonwealth: reserved but had concerns; sentencing court nonetheless imposed maximums | Court vacated sentence and remanded; issue not separately decided because remand granted on the independent-review error |
Key Cases Cited
- Losch v. Commonwealth, 535 A.2d 115 (Pa. Super. 1987) (resentencing judge should "start afresh" and reassess penalty)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 640 A.2d 914 (Pa. Super. 1994) (conduct since prior sentencing is relevant at resentencing)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Plasterer v. Commonwealth, 529 A.2d 37 (Pa. Super. 1987) (sentencing court must articulate reasons contemporaneously)
- Swope v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (four-part test to invoke appellate jurisdiction over discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Riggs v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to consider relevant sentencing criteria raises substantial question)