Com. v. D'Agostino
Com. v. D'Agostino No. 1207 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Drew D’Agostino pled guilty in 2010 to first‑degree robbery and conspiracy; judge imposed concurrent ten‑year probations (negotiated plea).
- He served on probation but repeatedly violated drug conditions (positive UA tests for opiates, cocaine, benzodiazepines; two attempts to provide fake urine).
- Court previously revoked probation twice, granted early parole twice, and warned that further violations could lead to state incarceration.
- After another positive drug test and failure to complete GED/job training, the court revoked probation a third time and sentenced D’Agostino to 2½ to 5 years’ incarceration (recommended SCI Chester for drug treatment).
- D’Agostino appealed, arguing the post‑revocation term was manifestly excessive for a technical probation violation; the trial court and Superior Court considered discretionary‑sentencing standards and statutory limits on post‑revocation dispositions.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2½–5 yrs’ incarceration after probation revocation was manifestly excessive | Sentence was disproportionate and unreasonable for a technical probation violation; preferred inpatient treatment instead of prison | Court had authority to re‑sentence up to original maximum; prior leniency and repeated violations justified confinement to vindicate court authority; probation officer had recommended outpatient FIR earlier | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; appellant failed to raise a substantial question and confinement to vindicate court authority was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (statutory criteria for confinement after probation revocation and deference to revocation sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes, 853 A.2d 1052 (Pa. Super. 2004) (no absolute right to appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for discretionary‑sentence review)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (evaluation of what presents a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Titus, 816 A.2d 251 (Pa. Super. 2003) (case‑by‑case assessment of substantial question)