Full title: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHANE BROLLY Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date published: May 25, 2023
Facts
Shane Brolly (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to eight counts of recklessly endangering another person; five counts each of aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence (DUI), aggravated assault by vehicle, accidents involving death or serious bodily injury; and one count each of DUI – general impairment, DUI – highest rate of alcohol, driving at unsafe speed, reckless driving, and driving within single lane.
Issue
Decision
we discern no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing discretion. Contrary to the Appellant’s claim, his sentence is neither excessive nor unreasonable, and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing some of the sentences consecutively. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 873 A.2d 704, 709 fn.2 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that imposition of consecutive sentences for two DUI offenses was solely within the trial court’s discretion and did not in and of itself rise to the level of a substantial question where appellant’s “offense was more reprehensible than a ‘typical’ DUI offense.”); Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (stating “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”); Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendants are not entitled to a “‘ volume discount’ for [their] crimes by having all sentences run concurrently.” (citation omitted)). Appellant’s aggregate sentence is neither “grossly disparate to [Appellant’s] conduct nor does it viscerally appear as patently’ unreasonable.'” Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 589 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Consequently, we will not disturb the Appellant’s sentence. See Barnes, supra.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.