Commonwealth v. Treadway, 104 A.3d 597

Appellant Peter Allen Treadway was convicted after a four-day jury trial of 45 counts of sexual offenses for long‑term sexual abuse of his stepdaughter beginning when she was 9–11 and continuing into her teens, including intercourse, branding with a heated paperclip, and fathering a pregnancy that resulted in an abortion. DNA showed a 99.9999% probability Appellant was the fetus’ father.
Appellant had a prior conviction for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a 12‑year‑old.
The trial court originally sentenced Appellant under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2 (an enhanced‑penalty statute enacted after the offenses) to an aggregate term of 100–200 years; this Court vacated that sentence on direct appeal as illegal under Ex post facto and Apprendi principles and remanded for resentencing, but left open the possibility of imposing the statutory maxima consecutively.
On remand the trial court again imposed mainly consecutive statutory maximum sentences yielding an aggregate 100–200 year term; Appellant filed a discretionary‑sentencing challenge claiming the aggregate term was excessive and violated sentencing norms.
The Superior Court reviewed whether Appellant presented a substantial question about the discretionary aspects of sentencing and then considered the proportionality of the consecutive, aggregate sentence in light of the crimes, victim impact, prior record, and public protection.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an aggregate 100–200 year sentence as excessively harsh	Consecutive statutory maximums guarantee life imprisonment and are excessive given sentencing norms	Consecutive statutory maxima were within the court’s discretion given the gravity, repetition, victim harm, and prior offense	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for discretionary‑aspects sentencing review and substantial‑question test)
Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (procedural requirements for seeking review of discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011) (consecutive sentences ordinarily within court’s discretion; aggregate extreme only when disproportionate to conduct)
Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (aggregate sentence assessed by whether consecutive sentencing produces an apparently excessive total)
Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (example where aggregate 40–80 years raised a substantial question because offenses were comparatively less serious)
Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discussion of sentencing court’s discretion to order concurrent or consecutive terms)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (statutory factfinding that increases punishment must be submitted to a jury)