Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333

In 2006 Swope burglarized a home and touched an asleep woman; police badge and wallet of her officer boyfriend were stolen. He later hid in a hotel room, was detained, fought security, and was found with stolen items and multiple credit cards.
In 2007 Swope pled nolo contendere to burglary and indecent assault (home offense) and to burglary and related offenses (first hotel-room offense); sentences included incarceration and 10 years’ probation for the burglary counts.
While on probation Swope committed additional offenses (burglary, assault, theft, access device fraud, corruption of minors) and received an aggregate 7–15 year sentence for those new convictions.
The trial court revoked Swope’s probation for the 2006 home and hotel offenses and on June 11, 2014 sentenced him to consecutive terms of 5–10 years (home burglary) and 1–10 years (hotel burglary), for an aggregate 6–20 years to be served consecutively to the 7–15 year sentence from the crimes committed on probation.
Swope timely appealed, arguing his 6–20 year sentence was manifestly excessive, the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs and mitigating factors, and that consecutive imposition produced effectively life exposure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 6–20 year sentence (consecutive to other sentences) was manifestly excessive	Swope: sentence is excessive, court ignored rehabilitative needs and mitigating factors; consecutive exposure effectively life	Trial court/Commonwealth: court considered factors, found Swope dangerous when released, sentence within discretion and statutory limits	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered rehab and mitigation, consecutive sentences allowed

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (when consecutive within guidelines might raise substantial question only in extreme circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (excessiveness claim coupled with failure to consider mitigation can present substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claims that court failed to consider rehabilitative needs often do not raise substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing court must consider protection of public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitative needs)
Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for revocation sentencing—abuse of discretion test)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-DeJesus, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no "volume discount" for multiple crimes; consecutive sentences permissible)