Com. v. Carson, C.
332 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Charissa Carson pleaded guilty (4/28/15) to retail theft (first-degree misdemeanor) and received 2–6 months’ imprisonment plus 12 months’ probation; she was paroled and later had multiple parole/probation revocations for substance use, failures to report, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.
- After successive revocations and intermittent paroles, the trial court recommitted Carson and ultimately imposed an aggregate state sentence of 17–37 months’ imprisonment (consecutive terms), with credit for time served and authorization for available treatment.
- At sentencing the court briefly remarked it was uncertain whether Carson was "triple RI eligible" but did not make the statutorily required on-the-record RRRI eligibility findings; the written sentencing order declared her ineligible for RRRI without explanation.
- Carson moved for reconsideration (denied) and appealed; new appellate counsel argued the sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to determine RRRI eligibility at sentencing.
- The Superior Court held that the trial court’s omission requires remand for an on-the-record determination of RRRI eligibility for Carson, while otherwise affirming non-RRRI aspects of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Carson’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to make the statutorily required RRRI eligibility determination at sentencing | Carson: Court failed to evaluate the six RRRI requisites on the record, making sentence illegal | Commonwealth: (implicit) eligibility was not properly raised or was discretionary; written order declared ineligibility | Held: Trial court erred by not making the required on-the-record RRRI findings; remand for hearing on RRRI eligibility required |
| Whether the sentence must be vacated in full because of RRRI error | Carson: RRRI omission renders sentence illegal as to RRRI relief and requires correction | Commonwealth: Other aspects of sentence are valid and should stand | Held: Sentence affirmed in part (as to non-RRRI aspects) and vacated in part (to the extent RRRI relief was denied); remand limited to RRRI eligibility determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to make RRRI eligibility determination renders sentence illegal)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (courts may raise legality-of-sentence issues sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 47 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2012) (RRRI Act applies to mandatory minimum sentences under certain drug statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 101 A.3d 56 (Pa. 2014) (multiple prior violent convictions may show a history of violent behavior under RRRI)
- Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 517 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1986) (sentencing error principles when remanding to restructure sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 871 A.2d 254 (Pa. Super. 2005) (if court errs on one count in multi-count case, entire sentencing scheme may be vacated in some circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing scope and implications of Robinson)