Com. v. Graham, C.
Com. v. Graham, C. No. 1265 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Clifton Lee Graham pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance and criminal use of a communication facility; other charges were nolle prossed.
- Sentencing was scheduled for July 25, 2016 at 8:45 a.m.; Graham was notified of the date and time.
- The court waited until 9:15 a.m., then sentenced Graham in absentia to two consecutive standard-range terms of 15 to 30 months.
- Graham arrived at the courthouse at 9:45 a.m. and was taken into custody; he filed a post-sentence motion the same day, which was denied.
- On appeal, Graham argued the court abused its discretion by improperly considering his absence from the sentencing hearing, producing an unduly harsh sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by considering appellant's absence and imposing an unduly harsh sentence | Graham: The court improperly relied on his failure to attend, making the sentence excessive | Commonwealth/Trial court: Sentence was within the standard-range; court considered PSR, psychological evaluation, criminal history, and rehabilitative needs; absence was a passing remark and not dispositive | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion. Sentence was standard-range and court permissibly considered factors including absence as undermining amenability to treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (four-part test for invoking appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (defining when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (reliance on impermissible factors can raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (sentencing court is afforded broad discretion and is best positioned to assess defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate relief available only for manifestly unreasonable sentences or those resulting from bias)
- Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard-range sentence with PSR weighs against a claim of excessiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (trial court presumed aware of relevant defendant information when imposing sentence with PSR)