Com. v. Frisbie, M.
1389 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2016Background
- Milton Ray Frisbie pled nolo contendere to indecent assault charges involving two minor step-granddaughters who were groped in the familial home.
- Offenses included one assault while a victim appeared asleep; both victims were under 18 and related to Frisbie by marriage.
- Frisbie was sentenced on July 2, 2015 to 6 months to 23 months and 29 days’ incarceration followed by 24 months of probation.
- A condition of probation prohibited Frisbie from having any contact with persons under 18 (supervised or unsupervised).
- Frisbie appealed, arguing the no-contact-with-minors probation condition was draconian, not necessary for public protection, and could conflict with sex-offender treatment/rehabilitation.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Frisbie preserved and raised a substantial question and whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion in imposing the condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant Frisbie) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a blanket prohibition on contact with minors during probation is an unreasonable/unduly restrictive condition | The condition is draconian, impairs family/community support, may conflict with rehabilitation/treatment | The condition is reasonably related to the crimes (sexual assaults of minors in his home) and protects children’s safety | Court upheld the condition as within sentencing discretion; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Frisbie raised a substantial question for appellate review | Condition violates 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(c)(13) by being unduly restrictive and depriving support | Commonwealth: bald assertion of undue restriction insufficient to raise substantial question | Court found Frisbie’s § 9754 claim sufficient to present a substantial question |
| Whether the trial court misapplied precedents like Houtz/Dewey to justify restriction | Condition unnecessarily broad compared to cases allowing supervised contact or limiting unrelated restrictions | Trial court distinguished Houtz/Dewey based on facts: here the restriction was directly tied to offenses against multiple minor family victims in the home | Court found Houtz inapplicable and Dewey distinguishable; trial court’s tailored restriction was reasonable |
| Whether probation condition interferes with rehabilitation or is punitive | Condition could hinder treatment or family-based support needed for rehab | Court: condition is rationally related to rehabilitative goals and public safety, tied to sex-offender evaluation and counseling requirements | Court held restriction served rehabilitative and protective purposes, not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Houtz, 982 A.2d 537 (Pa. Super. 2009) (found computer/internet ban unreasonable where unrelated to offense and hampered benefits/employment)
- Commonwealth v. Dewey, 57 A.3d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2012) (upheld supervised-contact approach; discussed reasonableness of no-contact with minors in context of guilty plea)
- Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (noting alleged inconsistency with § 9754 can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Koren, 646 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 1994) (probation orders may include any reasonable conditions tailored to rehabilitation and public safety)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explaining when a substantial question exists for appellate review)