Com. v. Hochschild, J.
Com. v. Hochschild, J. No. 683 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- James R. Hochschild pleaded guilty in 2005 to multiple solicitation and sexual-offense–related counts and received concurrent sentences with ten years special state probation after federal time served.
- Probation conditions included full-time work, individual and group sex-offender treatment, no pornographic materials, no computer/Internet use without approval, medication compliance, and evaluation for autism.
- After release from federal custody in April 2015, Hochschild attended treatment but admitted in September 2015 to viewing child pornography on his cell phone since May and other self-harming sexual behaviors; he was discharged from treatment for dishonesty and persistently deviant behavior.
- Treatment providers reported the conduct as high risk for re-offense and notified the parole officer; probation was revoked and Hochschild was detained for public safety.
- At the revocation hearing the court revoked probation and sentenced Hochschild to 12.5 to 25 years’ imprisonment (aggregate) followed by ten years’ probation; he appealed the discretionary aspects of that sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Hochschild's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate sentence (consecutive terms) was manifestly excessive | Consecutive terms produced an excessive, unreasonable sentence greater than needed for public protection and rehabilitative goals | Sentencing discretion permits consecutive sentences; record supports confinement to protect public and address recidivism | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive terms; claim fails |
| Whether sentence ignored rehabilitative needs / § 9721 factors | Court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and focused only on offense severity | Court explicitly considered treatment noncompliance, recidivism risk, need to protect public, and lack of amenability to rehabilitation | Court affirmed: record shows consideration of § 9721 factors |
| Whether total confinement was improper for technical probation violations | Imprisonment was disproportionate because violations were "technical" | Violations included viewing child porn and discharge for dishonesty—conduct indicating high risk of re-offense warranting confinement under § 9771(c) | Court affirmed: confinement was justified because conduct indicated likelihood of future crimes if not imprisoned |
| Whether sentence length raised a substantial question | Sentence within guideline-equivalents but claimed clearly unreasonable | Post-revocation the guidelines are inapplicable; court limited only by original statutory maximums and considered factors | Court affirmed: length not an abuse of discretion and no substantial question sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (total confinement after probation revocation for technical violation may implicate fundamental sentencing norms)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sentencing after probation revocation is limited only by the original maximum sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate review of sentencing discretion and when a substantial question exists)
- Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences; such challenges ordinarily do not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2007) (restrictions on sexual material and Internet access for sex offenders are rationally related to public-protection and relapse-prevention goals)