Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed an appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence imposed after guilty pleas to drug-delivery and conspiracy charges. The court held that the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing sentences outside the guideline ranges while focusing primarily on the nature of the offenses and failing to consider other required sentencing factors. The judgment of sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellant presented a substantial question permitting appellate review of the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
- Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence outside the Sentencing Guidelines based primarily on the nature and circumstances of the crimes without considering the defendant's history, character, condition, or mitigating factors.
- Whether the sentencing court adequately stated contemporaneous reasons for its departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.
Holdings
- A defendant's notice of appeal operates as a petition for allowance of appeal, and an allegation that an outside-guidelines sentence is unreasonable presents a substantial question under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b) sufficient to permit review.
- A sentencing court abuses its discretion when it imposes an outside-guidelines sentence by focusing on the nature and circumstances of the crime to the exclusion of the defendant's history, character, condition, and other relevant mitigating factors.
- A sentencing court's more extensive explanation in a later opinion under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) does not cure its failure to articulate reasons contemporaneously when imposing sentence.
Key quotations
“We also note that the sentencing court’s reasons for a particular sentence must be given contemporaneously with the imposition of the sentence. A more extensive explanation in an opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.App.P. 1925(a) will not cure a failure to articulate reasons at the time of sentencing.” (at 194)
“After reviewing the transcript of the sentencing proceeding, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in focusing on the nature of the crime to the exclusion of any other factor relevant to sentencing.” (at 195)
Factual background
Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and two counts of criminal conspiracy. The delivery offenses carried an offense gravity score of four, and appellant had a prior record score of zero, producing a standard guideline range of zero to twelve months, an aggravated range of twelve to eighteen months, and a mitigated range of non-confinement. The sentencing court imposed four consecutive two-to-five-year terms for the delivery offenses, concurrent terms for conspiracy, a fine, and restitution, explaining primarily that the cocaine sales involved large quantities and continuing activity.
Procedural history
Appellant pleaded guilty after a September 24, 1986 hearing. The trial court imposed four consecutive two-to-five-year terms for the delivery convictions, concurrent two-to-five-year terms for conspiracy, a $10,000 fine, and $3,300 restitution. Appellant moved to modify the sentence, the motion was denied, and he appealed the discretionary aspects of the sentence. The Superior Court allowed the appeal, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Remand instructions
The judgment of sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion. Jurisdiction was relinquished.