Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a claim challenging the excessiveness of a sentence within statutory limits is not categorically barred from appellate review. The Superior Court must determine whether the appellant has raised a substantial question under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781 and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), although a bare allegation of excessiveness is insufficient. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. An excessiveness challenge to a sentence within the statutory limits is not per se barred from appellate review under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). The Superior Court may not exclude an entire class of sentencing challenges from the opportunity for merits review solely because the sentence is within statutory limits.
2. A Rule 2119(f) statement raises a substantial question only when it sufficiently articulates how the sentence violates a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process; a bald allegation of excessiveness is insufficient.
3. The court did not reach the constitutional challenge because the case was resolved on the nonconstitutional ground that the Superior Court misinterpreted § 9781(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court may categorically refuse to review a discretionary sentencing challenge alleging excessiveness merely because the sentence falls within the statutory limits.
2. Whether a Rule 2119(f) statement that articulates how a sentence violates the Sentencing Code or a fundamental sentencing norm can raise a substantial question under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b).
3. Whether the Supreme Court needed to reach Mouzon's constitutional challenge to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded