Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127

On December 21, 2008 Zirkle was accused of burglarizing three homes (Hamilton, Robertson, Chase); victims’ homes were ransacked, money and coin rolls were taken, and victims observed footprints and other evidence.
Police found matching footprints at the three scenes, seized Zirkle’s truck, recovered silver certificates and coin rolls, and recovered boots and gloves that forensic examiners linked to the impressions.
Zirkle was convicted at trial on multiple counts (burglary, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, terroristic threats, theft, receiving stolen property).
After post-trial and direct appeals, a PCRA proceeding resulted in vacation of sentence for resentencing; Zirkle was resentenced to an aggregate 205 to 480 months on December 3, 2013.
Zirkle filed post-sentence motions and timely appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive, that the court over-weighted victim impact, erred by imposing consecutive sentences (instead of concurrent), and failed to account for temporal continuity of the offenses.

Issue	Zirkle’s Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether trial court failed to follow sentencing guidelines / abused discretion	Sentence disproportionate to crimes; court overvalued victim impact and failed to consider mitigating factors	Court considered mitigation, remorse, program completion, and victim impact; sentencing discretion was properly exercised	No abuse of discretion found; sentencing upheld
Whether consecutive sentences were improper	Consecutive terms produced an excessive aggregate sentence; crimes were temporally continuous so sentences should have been concurrent	Imposition of consecutive sentences is within trial court discretion under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721 and not subject to reversal absent manifest excess	No substantial question shown; consecutive sentences affirmed
Whether denial of reconsideration of sentence was error	Motion for reconsideration should have reduced aggregate sentence	Trial court properly weighed factors and declined reduction	Denial affirmed; appellant failed to raise a substantial question for appellate review

Commonwealth v. Hoch, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for sentencing discretion)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question re: sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-DeJesus, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no "volume discount" for crimes in a single spree)
Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867 (Pa. Super. 2005) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentences within trial court discretion)
Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1995) (no entitlement to concurrent sentences as a matter of right)
Commonwealth v. Spruill, 80 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (grading error concerns conviction legality and may be waived if not preserved)