Com. v. Acevedo, M.
Com. v. Acevedo, M. No. 1630 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Milton Acevedo pleaded guilty in 2008 to PWID and related possession offenses; sentence: 1½–3 years incarceration followed by two years reporting probation.
- Between 2011–2013 Acevedo was arrested/convicted on additional drug offenses and received a contempt sanction; these new convictions formed the basis for a probation violation (VOP) proceeding in April 2013.
- At the April 16, 2013 VOP hearing Acevedo asserted he was unaware he remained on probation after his 2010 release and opted against a presentence investigation (PSI).
- The trial court found Acevedo in violation, discredited his lack-of-notice claim, and revoked probation, imposing 2–4 years’ incarceration (later reduced to an 18‑month minimum under RRRI); Acevedo sought reconsideration and filed postconviction petitions yielding reinstated appellate rights.
- On appeal Acevedo challenged (1) the validity/timeliness of the VOP and (2) the discretionary aspects of the sentence, including the court’s decision to forgo a PSI and the sufficiency of its explanations.
Issues
| Issue | Acevedo's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in finding a VOP when Acevedo claims he was not notified of probation | Acevedo: He was never advised he remained on probation and probation supervision was not active, so revocation was improper | Commonwealth: Sentencing order notified him in 2008; new criminal convictions constitute direct violations; lack of personal knowledge is not a defense | Court: Found Acevedo not credible; violations were direct (new crimes); revocation proper |
| Whether VOP hearing was untimely (probation expired Nov 24, 2012) | Acevedo: Hearing occurred after his probation ended, so it was untimely | Commonwealth: Claim waived for failure to object and omission from Rule 1925(b); revocation may occur after expiration if violation occurred during probation | Court: Waived; even on merits, hearing was within a reasonable time and no prejudice shown |
| Whether contest that no PSI was ordered and court failed to state reasons for dispensing with PSI | Acevedo: PSI might contain mitigation and court failed to place reasons on record as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 702 | Commonwealth: Defense counsel declined PSI at hearing; court considered background from record and PSI was waived | Court: Waiver applies; court had sufficient information on record; claim meritless |
| Whether 2–4 year sentence was excessive/discretionary-abuse | Acevedo: Sentence failed to consider rehabilitation needs and was inconsistent with sentencing statute | Commonwealth: Sentence supported by defendant’s repeated criminality and direct convictions; within court’s discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; incarceration justified because of new convictions and likelihood of reoffense |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Commonwealth, 116 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2015) (scope of review after probation revocation)
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standards for reviewing revocation and sentencing)
- Griggs v. Commonwealth, 461 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super. 1983) (lack of notice may excuse technical reporting violations)
- Zeigler v. Commonwealth, 428 A.2d 220 (Pa. Super. 1981) (procedural preservation at VOP hearings)
- Lord v. Commonwealth, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) preservation issues)
- Lipton v. Commonwealth, 352 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 1975) (revocation may follow expiration if violation occurred during probation)
- Woods v. Commonwealth, 965 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Super. 2009) (factors for reasonable delay in scheduling VOP)
- Clark v. Commonwealth, 847 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2004) (same; prejudice analysis)
- Christmas v. Commonwealth, 995 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2010) (measuring delay for VOP hearings)
- Haynes v. Commonwealth, 125 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discretionary-aspects-of-sentence framework)
- Leatherby v. Commonwealth, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural steps to reach discretionary-aspects review)
- Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (what constitutes a substantial question on appeal)
- Seagraves v. Commonwealth, 103 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. 2014) (case-by-case substantial-question inquiry)
- Macias v. Commonwealth, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (absence of PSI can raise substantial question)
- Monahan v. Commonwealth, 860 A.2d 180 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sentencing purposes and limits)
- McAfee v. Commonwealth, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (no requirement of lengthy on-the-record sentencing discourse)