Com. v. Flowers, A.
35 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Flowers pleaded guilty (2013) to attempted rape, unlawful restraint, and two simple assaults for forcibly trying to drag a woman off a trail and propositioning her.
- He was sentenced (Feb. 18, 2014) to two years county intermediate punishment with electronic home monitoring for attempted rape and two years consecutive probation for unlawful restraint; sex-offender treatment was required.
- Flowers was dismissed from sex-offender treatment (Apr. 2014) because clinicians concluded his low IQ and mental-health issues prevented him from benefiting from the program; he also had violent incidents and several involuntary commitments.
- The trial court held revocation and re-sentencing proceedings (2014–2015), during which the court found (among other things) ongoing violent outbursts, inability to secure appropriate outpatient/inpatient placements, and difficulty complying with electronic monitoring.
- The court revoked intermediate punishment and imposed 2.5–5 years’ imprisonment plus two years’ probation (mitigated range); Flowers argued this was cruel and unusual and that the court abused its discretion. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation of intermediate punishment was cruel and unusual punishment | Flowers: Revocation punished him for failing a condition impossible to meet (couldn’t benefit from treatment due to low IQ) | Commonwealth: Court based revocation on broader conduct (violent outbursts, inability to comply, lack of suitable programs) | Revocation not cruel and unusual; court relied on violence and noncompliance, not solely inability to complete treatment |
| Whether imposed term of incarceration was disproportionate under Eighth Amendment | Flowers: New prison term is grossly disproportionate to original intermediate punishment and thus cruel | Commonwealth: Sentence within guidelines and justified by seriousness of offense and subsequent conduct | Sentence not grossly disproportionate; Eighth Amendment challenge fails |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not applying 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c) factors before ordering confinement | Flowers: Court failed to expressly apply § 9771(c); confinement improper | Commonwealth: Facts (violent history, likelihood to reoffend, lack of treatment placements) satisfy § 9771(c) considerations | No abuse of discretion; factors are supported by record even if not recited verbatim |
| Whether court relied on an impermissible factor (inability to complete sex-offender treatment) | Flowers: Court impermissibly punished him for inability to comply | Commonwealth: Inability to complete treatment was one contextual fact among many (violence, medication noncompliance, lack of placements) | No reversible error; inability to complete treatment was not the sole or dispositive basis for confinement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spells, 612 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 1992) (Eighth Amendment proportionality framework)
- Commonwealth v. Ehrsam, 512 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. 1986) (test for cruel and unusual punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2008) (rarity of successful Eighth Amendment challenges short of capital cases)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (gross disproportionality standard)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural posture for discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements to permit discretionary aspects of sentence appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (appellate brief content and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) context)