Com. v. Gill, A.
3654 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Aaron Gill pled guilty in 2010 to robbery and criminal conspiracy, was sentenced to 11½–23 months plus 1 year probation with immediate parole.
- While on that probation, Gill pleaded guilty in 2012 to possessing an offensive weapon; a VOP resulted in eight years’ probation.
- Gill was later convicted in 2016 of robbery (with a gun), possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, theft, PIC, and simple assault; Judge O'Keefe sentenced him to 2½–5 years plus 5 years probation.
- At a VOP hearing on October 24, 2016, the trial court revoked Gill’s 2010 probation and imposed 4–8 years’ imprisonment to run consecutively to the 2½–5 year term.
- Gill appealed, arguing the 4–8 year revocation sentence was manifestly excessive and unreasonable; the trial court and Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence was excessive | Commonwealth: revocation sentence lawful and within discretion | Gill: 4–8 years (consecutive) is grossly disproportionate to the violation | Held: No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and justified by convictions and violent escalation |
| Whether court failed to follow Sentencing Code factors | Commonwealth: court considered protection of public, gravity, rehabilitative needs | Gill: court ignored mitigating factors and rehabilitative prospects | Held: Trial court considered relevant factors; need not provide extended oral explanation |
| Whether confinement was necessary after revocation | Commonwealth: confinement warranted because Gill committed new violent crimes while on probation and is danger to public | Gill: punitive sanction for new offense sufficient without added consecutive term | Held: Confinement appropriate to vindicate court authority and protect public under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c) |
| Jurisdiction to impose sentence on revocation | Commonwealth: court had jurisdiction (original offenses and violations occurred in Philadelphia) | Gill: (raised implicitly) | Held: Court had jurisdiction; challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate scope of review for revocation sentencing includes discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (discretionary-sentencing appeals require Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); excessiveness can raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 888 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2005) (scope of review for probation-revocation sentences limited to validity of proceedings and legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 909 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2006) (revocation sentencing committed to trial court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (post-revocation sentence limited by the original maximum exposure)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (after revocation, court need not give lengthy discourse of reasons; record as a whole must show consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 673 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1996) (sentencing court abuses discretion if sentence is manifestly unreasonable or the result of partiality or bias)