finding substantial question where defendant argued "that his sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court erred by considering only the serious nature of the offenses and failing to consider mitigating factors such as his age (19) at sentencing, his rehabilitative needs, his limited education, his years of drug dependency, and his family dysfunction.”
How later courts described this case
- finding substantial question where defendant argued "that his sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court erred by considering only the serious nature of the offenses and failing to consider mitigating factors such as his age (19) at sentencing, his rehabilitative needs, his limited education, his years of drug dependency, and his family dysfunction.”
- stating that, in order for this Court to review a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence, the appellant must present a substantial question that the sentence violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process
- stating that “where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.”
- concluding that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a series of consecutive. standard range sentences when the court considen .xl the prescntcncc report and the particular circumstance of the crime
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 I dissent. Under these circumstances, I believe sentencing a nineteen year old defendant to a 100 year maximum sentence is excessive.