Com. v. Fetterolf, J.
Com. v. Fetterolf, J. No. 45 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- In October 2014 the trial court entered a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order prohibiting Joshua B. Fetterolf from contacting his wife.
- Multiple indirect criminal contempt (ICC) complaints were filed alleging repeated violations of that PFA; Fetterolf was previously convicted and sentenced on separate ICC dockets.
- At docket CP-60-MD-0000145-2015, the trial court convicted Fetterolf of two ICC counts based on (1) asking a corrections officer to deliver a message and (2) a letter to his wife; the Superior Court later vacated one count and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand, the trial court sentenced Fetterolf to 3–6 months’ imprisonment consecutive to his other sentences; Fetterolf moved to have the sentence run concurrently, which the court denied.
- Fetterolf appealed the discretionary aspects of the resentencing, arguing a concurrent sentence would satisfy sentencing objectives (deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation).
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Fetterolf’s Rule 2119(f) statement was inadequate and he failed to raise a substantial question; it added that, on the merits, consecutive sentencing was not an abuse of discretion given the repeated violations and threat to the victim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive 3–6 month sentence on remand instead of making it concurrent | Commonwealth: consecutive sentencing is within court's discretion and appropriate given repeated violations and threat to victim | Fetterolf: sentence should run concurrently because concurrent time would satisfy deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation | Affirmed: appeal denied for procedural reasons (deficient Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), no substantial question); alternatively, no abuse of discretion on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sets out procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explains that consecutive sentences lie within sentencing court discretion and when consecutive sentencing may raise a substantial question)