Com. v. Grigger, D.
1944 EDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 6, 2025Background
- Devon Grigger pleaded guilty in 2016 to various offenses in Philadelphia, receiving a sentence of 11½ to 23 months’ imprisonment plus five years’ probation.
- While on probation, Grigger was arrested in 2022 in Montgomery County for drug and firearms offenses, for which he was later convicted and sentenced.
- Consequently, the Philadelphia court found him in direct violation of probation and imposed an additional sentence of 1½ to 3 years’ imprisonment, consecutive to his Montgomery County sentence.
- Grigger filed a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion asserting the new sentence was excessive and inadequately considered his background and rehabilitative needs, claiming the court failed to conduct or document a sufficient presentence investigation.
- The lower court denied reconsideration, and Grigger timely appealed, claiming an abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Grigger's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the sentence manifestly excessive and failed to consider rehabilitative needs? | Court didn't properly consider his drug problem or individualized rehabilitation, and failed to order a PSI or provide sufficient reasons for not doing so. | The court gathered adequate information from other sources to make an informed, individualized sentencing decision. | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed as individualized, with adequate information considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 323 A.3d 26 (Pa. Super. 2024) (abuse of sentencing discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (substantial question in discretionary sentence appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to consider statutory factors or PSI report raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court must consider defendant’s background and potential for rehabilitation in sentencing)