Com. v. Brown, M.
Com. v. Brown, M. No. 2095 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Mark Brown pled guilty (2003) to first-degree robbery, first-degree aggravated assault, and criminal conspiracy for a 2001 attack/robbery of a store owner that caused serious bodily injury.
- Initial sentencing was modified; Brown received 11½ to 23 months imprisonment followed by eight years probation (2003).
- While on probation Brown incurred additional convictions in Montgomery County (2010) and absconded/missed probation meetings, prompting a VOP hearing (June 7, 2011).
- The trial court revoked probation and resentenced Brown to an aggregate 5 to 10 years state imprisonment followed by 10 years probation; the court credited time served when imposing the new term.
- Brown filed a PCRA and obtained nunc pro tunc relief to appeal; he argued the revocation sentence was an abuse of discretion and illegal because the combined confinement exceeded the 20-year statutory maximum for first‑degree felonies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary aspects of revocation sentence | Brown: 5–10 years + 10 years probation is manifestly excessive; court failed to consider age, rehab needs, family, employment, and other mitigating factors | Trial court: considered sentencing factors, guidelines, statutory maxima, prior PSI/mental evaluation, demeanor, probation history; probation ineffective | Affirmed — sentence within discretion; court considered required factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Legality re: statutory maximum | Brown: Combining original 11½–23 months with 5–10 years exceeds 20‑year statutory max for a first‑degree felony, so sentence is illegal | Commonwealth/trial court: court credited time served upon resentencing; post‑revocation court may impose any original options so long as total exposure does not exceed statutory max when credit is applied | Affirmed — not illegal because credit for time served prevents exceeding the statutory maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (post‑revocation court may impose any original sentencing options but must account for time served to avoid exceeding statutory maximum)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 662 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant entitled to credit for time served when resentenced after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (upon revocation, incarceration is a permissible option and probationer’s new criminal activity shows non‑amenability to probation)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 611 A.2d 731 (Pa. Super. 1992) (a within‑statutory sentence is not a substantial question for excessiveness review)
- Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, 923 A.2d 1111 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing cannot exceed statutory maximum)
- Commonwealth v. Carrillo‑Diaz, 64 A.3d 722 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sentencing court must have sufficient information via PSI or inquiry to impose a sentence of one year or more)
- Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1973) (court may revoke probation when probation fails to accomplish rehabilitation and deterrence)
- Commonwealth v. Eicher, 605 A.2d 337 (Pa. Super. 1992) (appellate courts give great weight to sentencing court’s opportunity to observe defendant)