Com. v. Forbes, I.
3024 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty in 2011 to PWID and DUI and received concurrent incarceration plus probation for the PWID conviction.
- While on probation, Appellant was convicted in Delaware County (April 30, 2014) of burglary, robbery, and conspiracy and received an aggregate 13–26 year sentence.
- The Philadelphia trial court held a VOP hearing on September 4, 2015, revoked Appellant’s probation, and imposed 4–8 years’ confinement to run consecutively to the Delaware County sentence.
- Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and appealed, arguing the revocation sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court failed to follow Sentencing Code requirements and Rule 702 concerning a pre‑sentence report.
- The Superior Court treated Appellant’s claims as challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing and proceeded to review preservation, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, and whether a substantial question was presented.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the trial court considered public protection, gravity of offenses (including new violent crimes), rehabilitative needs, and was sufficiently informed to dispense with a new PSI.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation sentence was manifestly excessive for failing to consider 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) factors | Court did not weigh statutory factors, failed to individualize sentence, and gave no reasons | Court relied on Appellant’s new, increasingly violent convictions and need to vindicate authority and protect public | Affirmed — court adequately considered protection, gravity, and rehabilitation; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentence was individualized | Appellant argued sentencing failed to account for background, mental health, rehabilitative needs | Trial court demonstrated knowledge of Appellant’s history and progression of criminality | Affirmed — court sufficiently informed to impose individualized punishment |
| Whether trial court erred by not stating reasons for refusing a pre‑sentence report under Pa.R.Crim.P. 702 | Appellant contends lack of on‑record explanation for dispensing with PSI requires resentencing | Court had working knowledge of defendant and past conduct; no changed circumstances to warrant a new PSI | Affirmed — no requirement for PSI in every case; court was adequately informed |
| Whether sentencing court violated Sentencing Code by not articulating statutory analysis | Appellant claims court did not explicitly cite or analyze statutes | Court gave reasons tied to new violent offenses, public safety, and vindication of authority | Affirmed — explicit statutory recitation not required post‑revocation where reasons are clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary aspects of sentencing are reviewable as non‑automatic appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate standard for sentencing abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (four‑part test to reach discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.3d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (preservation of sentencing claims after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (what presents a substantial question for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to consider § 9721(b) factors raises a substantial question on VOP appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (no need for lengthy statutory recitation post‑revocation; reasons may be concise)
- Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2003) (manifest excessiveness where court failed to consider nonviolent nature of violations and defendant’s background)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to state reasons for dispensing with PSI can raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Carrillo–Diaz, 64 A.3d 722 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 702 satisfied if court is informed enough to tailor sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PSI not required in every case)