Com. v. Grenier, E.
1626 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- In 2004 Edmund Arthur Grenier, Jr. pled guilty to five counts of Deceptive Business Practices for taking over $500,000 for cemetery markers and failing to deliver; he was sentenced to five years’ reporting probation on concurrent counts.
- While on probation, in 2015 Grenier pled guilty to two new counts of Deceptive Business Practices based on similar conduct.
- At a September 16, 2015 hearing, the trial court revoked Grenier’s probation, took judicial notice of the new conviction and the PSI, and resentenced him to five to ten years’ incarceration on each of the original five counts, ordered consecutively for an aggregate 25 to 50 years.
- Grenier timely appealed, arguing the sentence was an abuse of discretion and manifestly unreasonable and that the court failed to adequately explain its reasons for the aggregate sentence.
- The trial court relied on statutory bases for total confinement after revocation (new conviction; likelihood of future crimes; vindicating court authority) and on the PSI and on-the-record statements describing Grenier’s continued criminality and lack of remorse.
- The Superior Court reviewed the revocation-sentence for abuse of discretion and concluded the trial court adequately stated reasons and did not abuse its discretion; it affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in revoking probation and imposing consecutive terms aggregating 25–50 years | Grenier: sentence is manifestly unreasonable, too severe, and inadequately explained | Commonwealth/Trial ct.: revocation and total confinement were authorized by statute given new conviction, ongoing conduct, and need to vindicate court authority; reasons were stated and PSI considered | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 9 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for appellate review of probation revocation sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 787 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 2001) (requirements for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (manifest excessiveness of sentence can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (consideration of the PSI can satisfy on-the-record reasons for sentence)