Com. v. Bonner, G.
Com. v. Bonner, G. No. 1369 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Gary Bonner III pled guilty pursuant to agreement to statutory sexual assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.1(a)(1)) on Feb. 11, 2013; other charges withdrawn; sentenced to 5 years probation and no direct appeal was taken.
- During supervision Bonner repeatedly violated conditions (possession of internet-capable cell phone, failure to report/maintain contact with PO for months, missed drug screens, discharge from sex-offender treatment, failure to pay fines/costs).
- Court held review hearings in May and Sept. 2013, continued probation despite noncompliance; at an August 5, 2015 violation hearing probation was revoked and court sentenced Bonner to 1½–5 years’ imprisonment.
- Bonner filed timely post-sentence motions (granted only as to credit for time served) and appealed, arguing the revocation sentence was manifestly excessive and challenged the court’s failure to order a pre-sentence report and reliance on inaccurate facts.
- The Superior Court treated these as discretionary-sentencing challenges and evaluated whether the trial court considered statutory sentencing factors, whether Rule 702 requirements were met, and whether any factual errors affected the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant Bonner) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence (1½–5 years) was manifestly excessive/abused discretion for failure to consider §9721(b) factors | Bonner: court failed to weigh youth, lack of prior record, technical nature of violations, family support, education/work, rehabilitative needs | Trial court/Commonwealth: judge was familiar with Bonner’s history and considered relevant factors; violations were flagrant and warranted confinement | Affirmed — no abuse: court’s familiarity and the repeated technical violations justified total confinement |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to order a pre-sentence investigation report (Pa.R.Crim.P. 702) | Bonner: trial court refused defense request and gave no reasons on record for dispensing with PSI; PSI required when incarceration ≥1 year possible | Commonwealth: trial court had sufficient, comprehensive information from supervision history, counsel, and probation officer to individualize sentence without PSI | Affirmed — no relief: Rule 702 satisfied by record; judge adequately informed about defendant |
| Whether sentencing relied on inaccurate factual statements (contact with victim; computer access) | Bonner: court misstated that he maintained contact with victim and misstated computer-access conditions | Commonwealth: any misstatements were fleeting and did not bear on core reasons for revocation (repeated violations) | Affirmed — no relief: inaccuracies were immaterial to sentencing decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. Commonwealth, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary-aspect-of-sentence challenges reviewed on appeal)
- Clarke v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentencing review standard; abuse of discretion)
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary-sentencing review after probation revocation)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (review of certified record on discretionary sentencing)
- Cook v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (four-part test to reach merits of discretionary sentencing claim)
- Kalichak v. Commonwealth, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (preservation of sentencing claims after revocation)
- Marts v. Commonwealth, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (what constitutes a substantial question for appellate review)
- Malovich v. Commonwealth, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (technical violations can nonetheless present excessive-sentence questions)
- Kelly v. Commonwealth, 33 A.3d 638 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to state reasons for dispensing with PSI raises substantial question)
- Pasture v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (after revocation, judge need not recite statutes or lengthy reasons; judge is usually well informed)
- Carver v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2007) (flagrant technical violations can support revocation and incarceration)
- Carrillo–Diaz v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 722 (Pa. Super. 2013) (flexibility in how Rule 702 requirement is fulfilled)
- Goggins v. Commonwealth, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PSI not required in all cases)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 460 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 1983) (sentencing must follow general principles of Sentencing Code)