Com. v. Laury, A. ( 2016 )

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
AQUILLA D. LAURY, :
:
Appellant : No. 1255 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered July 9, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County,
Criminal Division at No. CP-41-CR-0001155-2014
BEFORE: STABILE, PLATT,* and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED AUGUST 26, 2016
I join the Majority’s holding that Laury failed to raise a substantial
question for our review. I write separately to express my disquiet about the
nearly unfettered discretion given to trial courts in imposing consecutive or
concurrent sentences.
“The imposition of consecutive as opposed to concurrent sentences is
solely within the discretion of the trial court, and does not in and of itself
even rise to the level of a substantial question.” Commonwealth v.
Johnson, 873 A.2d 704, 709 at n.2 (Pa. Super. 2005).
The rationale behind such broad discretion and the
concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the
sentencing court is “in the best position to determine the proper
penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the
individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Ward,
524 Pa. 48, 568 A.2d 1242, 1243 (1990); see also
Commonwealth v. Jones, 418 Pa.Super. 93, 613 A.2d 587,
591 (1992) (en banc ) (offering that the sentencing court is in a
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39011-16
superior position to “view the defendant's character, displays of
remorse, defiance or indifference and the overall effect and
nature of the crime.”). Simply stated, the sentencing court
sentences flesh-and-blood defendants and the nuances of
sentencing decisions are difficult to gauge from the cold
transcript used upon appellate review. Moreover, the sentencing
court enjoys an institutional advantage to appellate review,
bringing to its decisions an expertise, experience, and judgment
that should not be lightly disturbed.
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007).
As cited by the learned Majority, “the imposition of consecutive, rather
than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the
most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is
unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of
imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa.
Super. 2012) (en banc), appeal denied, 75 A.3d 1281 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis
added).
I am mindful of these principles; however, as is so often the case,
inconsistent application of the sentencing factors and limited appellate
review results in similarly situated defendants being treated disparately with
no recourse. I believe this is a situation our jurisprudence cannot
countenance. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.