Com. v. Tait, J.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 260 EDA 2018

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; October 19, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jillian Tait appeals her sentence following a negotiated guilty plea to multiple charges, including third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, stemming from her involvement in the beating death of her three-year-old son and the assault of her six-year-old son. The court sentenced her to an aggregate term of 42 to 94 years of incarceration. The case involved systematic abuse over three days, during which Tait and her boyfriend, Gary Fellenbaum, inflicted severe physical harm on the children, including beating the three-year-old, who was ultimately killed. Despite claiming Fellenbaum was the primary aggressor, Tait admitted to using various implements, such as a wooden spoon and frying pan, to strike the children, and she did not intervene to stop the violence. The couple's actions included placing the unconscious child in a shower to revive him for further beatings. Tait cooperated with law enforcement and confessed to her involvement, which contributed to Fellenbaum's plea to first-degree murder and subsequent life sentence. As part of her plea agreement, the death penalty was not sought against Tait. The court considered her lack of prior criminal history and a presentence investigation report, while Tait expressed remorse and portrayed herself as a victim of manipulation by Fellenbaum. The appeal challenges the severity of the sentence, but the court affirmed the original judgment.

Appellant presented her medical history, including PTSD, depression, and a past suicide attempt, during sentencing. The court noted her emotional expression regarding her loss, stating she spoke as though she had lost a child. The court subsequently sentenced her to 42 to 94 years of incarceration, followed by five years of probation, and denied her motion for reconsideration. Appellant appealed, raising two primary issues: the alleged excessiveness of her sentence relative to sentencing guidelines and her cooperation with the prosecution, particularly in contrast to the more violent actions of her co-defendant, Gary Fellenbaum. Additionally, she contended that the court failed to adequately consider her cooperation and circumstances, focusing too heavily on the nature of the crimes.

The appeal was timely filed, and the sentencing issues were preserved in a post-sentence motion. Appellant's brief included the required statement under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). The court must evaluate whether Appellant has raised a substantial question about the appropriateness of her sentence, assessing it on a case-by-case basis. A substantial question may be found if Appellant articulates how the sentence violates the Sentencing Code or contradicts fundamental sentencing norms. The analysis focuses on the reasons for the appeal rather than the underlying factual context.

The Appellant contends that the trial court focused solely on the severity of the crime, neglecting mitigating factors such as her mental health issues and challenging childhood. She argues that her sentence, imposed at the top of the standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines, is excessive given her cooperation with the prosecution and expression of remorse. The court acknowledges that while the Appellant raises a substantial question regarding the appropriateness of her sentence, it ultimately finds no merit in her claims upon review. 

The standard of review emphasizes the sentencing judge's discretion, requiring the Appellant to demonstrate that the court either misapplied the law or acted with bias. The judge is expected to consider public protection, the crime's impact, and the defendant's rehabilitative needs. The Appellant argues that the court did not adequately weigh her cooperation or other mitigating evidence, including her guilty plea, which spared her son from testifying. However, the court presumes that it properly considered all relevant information, as indicated by the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report. 

The sentencing court articulated its rationale for the sentence, highlighting the horrific nature of the crime and the abdication of parental responsibility. Ultimately, the appellate court affirms the sentence, finding no valid basis to challenge the sentencing court's discretion.