En route to affirming the sentencing court, the Pennsylvania Superior Court published a rare opinion dealing solely with challenges to the discretionary aspect of a sentence. The defendant pled guilty to robbery and aggravated assault. The sentencing court imposed sentences in the aggravated range of the guidelines. On appeal, the Superior Court found that the defendant raised three substantial questions: (1) “allegations that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime”; (2) “sentencing court’s failure to consider mitigating circumstances”; and (3) “sentence was excessive in light of certain mitigating factors”. After a thorough recounting of Pennsylvania sentencing standards, the Superior Court affirmed.
