Com. v. Checchia, L.
Com. v. Checchia, L. No. 110 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Appellant Lance Checchia pleaded guilty in 2009 to robbery (one to three years' imprisonment, followed by four years’ probation).
- In 2016 he pleaded guilty to tampering with physical evidence and possession of drug paraphernalia and received concurrent one‑year probation terms, to run consecutive to his earlier probation.
- In October 2016 Checchia committed multiple technical probation violations over about a week (missed home visits/curfew checks, changed residence without permission, failed to report).
- The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole charged violations; at a Gagnon II hearing Checchia admitted violating probation.
- The trial court revoked probation on both dockets and sentenced Checchia to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment.
- Checchia appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive, that the court failed to consider rehabilitative/mental‑health alternatives, and that total confinement was unwarranted under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence (2–4 years) was excessive / violated § 9721(b) | Sentence ignored rehabilitative needs and mental‑health treatment options; violations were technical and brief; court relied on Board’s push for incarceration without treatment timeline | Court considered Appellant’s history, lack of prior engagement in treatment, progressive sanctioning failure, and need to vindicate authority; incarceration necessary to ensure treatment and public safety | No relief. Court affirmed: trial court sufficiently considered factors and explained reasons for sentence |
| Whether total confinement was improper under § 9771(c) | No new crime; conduct did not indicate likelihood of new crimes; confinement not essential to vindicate authority given short, technical violations | Aggregate violations and failure to comply with supervision and treatment showed need to vindicate court’s authority and protect public; prior offenses and lack of response to sanctions justified confinement | No relief. Sentence permissible under § 9771(c); revocation sentencing is within trial court discretion |
| Whether court should have committed Appellant to a mental‑health treatment facility instead of prison | Prison cannot provide appropriate mental‑health treatment; alternatives and involuntary commitment concerns exist; Board’s rationale nonsensical under Mental Health Act | Trial court acknowledged mental‑health needs but found Appellant failed to pursue treatment; incarceration necessary to ensure evaluation/treatment and safety | No relief. Trial court may choose confinement post‑revocation when necessary; lack of timeline for treatment not fatal to sentence |
| Preservation / procedural sufficiency for discretionary‑sentencing review | Appellant preserved claims in post‑sentence motion and Rule 1925(b) statement | Some arguments (timeline, facility preference, purely technical nature) were waived where not raised at sentencing; but court addressed core claims in opinion | No relief. Appellant’s preserved claims reviewed and found lacking; waived claims not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due‑process standards for probation/parole revocation proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate review of discretionary sentencing after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (when a substantial question exists for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requirement to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement when challenging discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (revocation sentence excessiveness may present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 909 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court discretion in sentencing after probation revocation)