Com. v. Folkes, H., Com. v. Folkes, H. No. 1237 MDA 2016

In May 2015 Hassan Burgess Folkes pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to deliver and possession of heroin; court imposed two concurrent sentences of time-served to 23 months plus 2 years probation under a plea agreement.
Folkes failed to report to probation on August 4, 2015; the probation office discovered he provided false addresses and the court issued a bench warrant.
He was arrested March 16, 2016; at an April 18, 2016 revocation hearing he admitted violating supervision and stated he had voluntarily surrendered.
A PSI and Parole Services investigation later showed he had not voluntarily surrendered and revealed an extensive criminal history (≈25 prior convictions including drug sales, theft, resisting arrest, and assault).
On June 27, 2016 the court revoked probation and sentenced Folkes to 2–5 years’ incarceration (with credit from March 4, 2016). Folkes filed a post-sentence motion and timely appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive for a first technical violation and that mitigating factors were not considered.
The Superior Court affirmed, finding (1) Folkes raised a substantial question because the revocation sentence exceeded his original sentence, and (2) no abuse of discretion occurred given the PSI, criminal history, and trial court findings.

Issue	Folkes' Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the 2–5 year revocation sentence was manifestly excessive/abuse of discretion	Sentence excessive for a first technical violation; court failed to consider upbringing, mitigation, and rehabilitative needs; sentence exceeded original sentence	Sentence was within court's discretion after revocation; PSI and investigation justified incarceration given misrepresentations and extensive criminal history	Affirmed: Superior Court found a substantial question existed but no abuse of discretion; sentence reasonable based on record and PSI

Kuykendall v. Commonwealth, 2 A.3d 559 (Pa. Super. 2010) (scope of review for probation-revocation appeals)
Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (same)
Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary-aspects sentencing review)
W.H.M. v. Commonwealth, 932 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appeal-as-petition for allowance when alleging discretionary error)
Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for presenting substantial question)
Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (substantial-question analysis)
Matroni v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 444 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question)
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial question when post-revocation confinement exceeds original sentence for technical violation)
Dodge v. Commonwealth, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discretionary-aspects challenges)
Colon v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court’s discretion and limits on revocation sentencing)
Ventura v. Commonwealth, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI)
Devers v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (PSI informs court of appropriate sentencing considerations)