Com. v. Dukes, L.
123 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Lerin Jovan Dukes pled guilty in 2014–2015 to multiple counts of simple assault involving his wife; received concurrent two‑year probations and conditions including no contact and batterer’s treatment.
- After repeated alleged violations (including contact with the victim, alcohol use, and new assault allegations), his probations were revoked and he was resentenced multiple times; a PSI was obtained before the 12/15/2016 revocation sentencing.
- In November 2016 Dukes was convicted on related sexual‑assault and simple‑assault charges (separate docket) and received a one–two year term plus longer probation and sex‑offender registration; those convictions were on appeal and not before this Court in the present appeal.
- At the 12/15/2016 probation‑violation hearing Dukes admitted wrongdoing, apologized, and the victim (his wife) asked for leniency; probation/parole testified to prior reports, bench warrants, and alternative housing placement.
- The trial court found Dukes violated probation, expressed concern about recurring violence and public safety, revoked probation, and imposed three consecutive one–to‑two year terms (aggregate 3–6 years). Dukes moved to reconsider, appealed, arguing the court failed to consider rehabilitative needs under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and that the consecutive maximum sentences were excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Dukes' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to consider rehabilitative needs (§ 9721(b)) when sentencing after revocation | Dukes: court did not meaningfully consider his acceptance of responsibility, family support, employment/education prospects, or rehabilitative needs; thus sentence is excessive | Commonwealth: court considered the PSI and discussed rehabilitation and public‑safety concerns on the record; revocation sentencing may be harsher when probation proved ineffective | Court: trial court considered relevant factors (including PSI and remarks); no abuse of discretion; claim denied |
| Whether Dukes presented a substantial question to permit review of discretionary aspects of sentence | Dukes: failure to consider § 9721(b) and excessiveness of consecutive maximum terms raises a substantial question | Commonwealth: procedural requirements met; merits governed by revocation standards and statutory limits | Court: procedural requisites satisfied; substantial question presented and addressed on the merits |
| Whether consecutive maximum sentences were excessive given prior lenient sentences and victim’s requests for leniency | Dukes: consecutive max terms were disproportionate and punitive rather than rehabilitative | Commonwealth: repeated assaults, technical violations, failure of probation as rehabilitative vehicle, and need to protect public and vindicate authority justify sentence | Court: consecutive maximums were reasonable under the circumstances; probation had failed and confinement was justified; sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope of review for revocation sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. Super. 2014) (post‑revocation sentencing can be harsher when probation proved ineffective)
- Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (failure to consider § 9721(b) presents a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consecutive sentences and excessiveness claims in revocation context)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard for determining a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no lengthy on‑the‑record discourse required; PSI creates presumption court considered relevant info)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that judge considered PSI information)