Com. v. Harris, S.
91 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Shawn Harris pled guilty in 2010 to multiple firearms offenses, resisting arrest, receiving stolen property, and summary offenses across two dockets.
- Trial court's aggregate sentence after plea: 2–4 years incarceration and 4 years probation consecutive to incarceration; probation terms were imposed on certain counts.
- On December 16, 2014, the court found Harris to be a technical probation violator, revoked probation, and resentenced him to an aggregate 4–8 years incarceration plus 4 years probation consecutive to incarceration.
- Harris filed a timely notice of appeal and a Statement of Errors (Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)); he did not raise a discretionary sentencing challenge in his counselled post-sentence motion—only an illegality claim that the trial court subsequently corrected.
- The Superior Court treated Harris’s challenge as an attack on the discretionary aspects of sentence but held the claim waived for failure to preserve at sentencing or in a proper post‑sentence motion and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate revocation sentence (4–8 years) was manifestly excessive and an abuse of discretion because the court failed to consider prior sanctions and community‑based alternatives | Sentence was proper and within the trial court’s discretion following probation revocation | Sentence was excessive; trial court failed to consider sufficiency of prior sanctions and availability of community resources for rehabilitation | Waived for failure to preserve discretionary sentencing claim; in any event, Superior Court affirmed the sentence |
| Whether appellate review is permissible following revocation when claim was not raised below | Review of discretionary aspects is permitted after probation revocation but must be preserved | Argued discretionary review should be allowed despite preservation defect | Court held preservation rules apply; Harris’s failure to raise the issue in a counselled post‑sentence motion waived the claim; pro se filings by represented defendant are nullities |
Key Cases Cited
- Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discretionary‑aspects-of-sentencing review is not absolute)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for invoking appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (what constitutes a "substantial question" for sentencing review)
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary sentence challenges allowed in appeals following probation revocation)
- Klein v. Commonwealth, 781 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 2001) (trial court may correct patent and obvious sentencing errors despite jurisdictional limits)
- Jette v. Commonwealth, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (hybrid representation is impermissible; pro se filings by represented defendants are nullities)