Com. v. Casper, S.
1096 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Shelby Darlin Casper pled guilty in 2012 (CC 2012) to conspiracy (burglary), theft, and receiving stolen property and was sentenced to 3 years probation.
- In 2013 (CC 2013) she pled guilty to possession of a firearm with altered manufacturer number, PWID, possession, recklessly endangering another person, and paraphernalia; received intermediate punishment and concurrent probation on PWID.
- The court found multiple probation violations: in 2014 (new conviction), June 2015 (technical violations), and June 28, 2016 (third violation), including refusal to participate in JRS, noncompliance with mental-health treatment, daily marijuana use, removing an ankle bracelet twice, and a defiant attitude toward supervision.
- At the June 28, 2016 revocation hearing the court resentenced Casper: time served on the 2012 case; 42 to 100 months incarceration plus 3 years consecutive probation on the 2013 gun/drug case (aggregate 54–124 months asserted by appellant).
- Casper timely appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence after only technical violations and by failing to consider statutory sentencing factors and mitigating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in imposing incarceration after probation revocation | Casper: sentence excessive because revocation based solely on technical violations and court failed to consider protection of public, gravity, and her rehabilitative needs | Commonwealth/Trial court: court considered probation history, refusal of treatment, and need to vindicate court authority; incarceration was appropriate to secure treatment and protect community | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence justified under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c) |
| Whether court failed to consider mitigating evidence (mental-health treatment, employment, family support) | Casper: court ignored key mitigating evidence and rehabilitative potential | Court: record (two presentence reports, Behavior Clinic evaluation, hearings) shows the court considered these factors and Casper repeatedly refused treatment | Held — court considered mitigating evidence and reasonably rejected leniency given defiance and noncompliance |
| Whether court gave adequate on-the-record reasons for sentence | Casper: insufficient explanation for sentence choice | Court: made detailed on-the-record findings about violations, treatment refusals, defiant attitude, and reliance on pre-sentence reports | Held — sufficient explanation; no requirement for lengthy discourse so long as record shows consideration |
| Whether the sentence was manifestly unreasonable given prior available sentencing options | Casper: alternatives to confinement were available and should have been used | Court: alternatives had been tried; probation supervision ineffective without JRS and Casper refused JRS | Held — confinement was permissible and essential to vindicate court authority and address risk of future offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing review requires procedural prerequisites)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (probation-revocation sentencing and appellate review deference)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentencing is within trial court discretion; abuse standard)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing judge considered presentence report)