Com. v. Handy, T.
Com. v. Handy, T. No. 1653 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Tyron Handy pled guilty in 2011 to burglary (sentenced to 6–23 months plus 3 years probation); conspiracy sentence not imposed.
- Released on parole 2/28/2013; probation was continued after a 3/21/2014 VOP hearing.
- While on probation, Handy was arrested in 6/2014 and later pled guilty (11/30/2015) to third-degree murder (sentenced to 20–40 years).
- On 4/22/2016 the trial court revoked Handy’s burglary probation based on the murder conviction and imposed a 9–18 year sentence to run consecutively to the murder sentence.
- Handy filed a post-sentence motion (denied by operation of law) and timely appealed, arguing the revocation sentence was excessive and not individualized.
Issues
| Issue | Handy's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by imposing 9–18 years on revocation without an individualized sentencing analysis or PSI | Trial court imposed a manifestly excessive, non-individualized sentence after a perfunctory hearing and failed to state reasons or consider background/character | Court considered criminal history and that Handy committed murder while on probation; Handy declined to testify and did not seek PSI at hearing; sentence within original maximum | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part preservation and substantial-question framework for discretionary sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for review of probation-revocation sentences and permissible range)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (record must reflect consideration of crime and offender; lengthy explanation not required)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 950 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 2008) (allegation that court failed to consider statutory factors or to explain PSI raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (guidelines not required on revocation sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (upon revocation, court limited only by maximum it could have imposed originally)