Com. v. Quick, E. ( 2020 )

J-S01030-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
EDDIE QUICK :
:
Appellant : No. 2115 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 17, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0002718-2015
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: Filed: April 15, 2020
Although I join the Majority, I do so reluctantly as to the discretionary
aspects of Quick’s sentences. The Majority determines that the alleged
excessiveness of Quick’s consecutive sentences for robbery does not present
a substantial question. It is true that this Court has held that “[a] challenge
to the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences does not
present a substantial question regarding the discretionary aspects of
sentence.” Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.2d 127, 133 (Pa. Super.
2014). I must follow this proposition even though I do not agree with it.
See id. (Strassburger, J., concurring). As I explained in my concurrence in
Zirkle, our limited ability to review discretionary aspects of sentences
provides trial courts with “nearly unfettered discretion” to impose
consecutive or concurrent sentences. Id. at 134. I believe that this limited
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S01030-20
review of sentencing discretion is at odds with Article V, Section 9 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides criminal defendants with “an
absolute right to appeal.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Franklin, 823
A.2d 906, 908 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
In the instant case, while I agree with the Majority that Appellant’s
robbery crimes technically do not merge for sentencing purposes, the trial
court’s decision to run the robbery sentences consecutively results in an
aggregate sentence that is more than a sentence for third-degree murder.
If the trial court had imposed the sentences concurrently, Appellant’s actions
of stealing a car at knifepoint would have resulted in a ten to twenty year
sentence. But since the trial court imposed the sentences consecutively,
those same actions resulted in a twenty to forty year sentence. To be clear,
“carjacking,” as it is known colloquially, is a very serious crime, but in this
case, no one suffered physical injury. Yet the law in this Commonwealth
prevents us from even considering whether the trial court exercised its
discretion appropriately in imposing a sentence that exceeds the sentence
that would be warranted for a loss of life. This, to me, is unjust and
unconstitutional.
-2-