Com. v. Howard, T.
88 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Terrence Howard pleaded guilty on Jan. 6, 2015 to one count of unlawful contact with a minor (third-degree felony).
- On the plea day the trial court imposed a split sentence: 11½ to 23 months imprisonment plus five years of probation.
- On Dec. 9, 2015 the court found Howard in violation of probation, revoked probation, and resentenced him to 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment followed by five years’ probation for the same conviction.
- The trial court did not credit Howard with time served from his original sentence when imposing the revocation sentence.
- Howard timely appealed, arguing the revocation sentence was illegal (exceeded statutory maximum), manifestly excessive (failure to consider 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) factors), and based on impermissible information.
- The Commonwealth conceded illegality of the sentence; the Superior Court reviewed the legality of the revocation sentence and vacated it, remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence exceeded the statutory maximum | Howard: the 3–6 years plus 5 years probation produces a cumulative term exceeding the statutory maximum for a third‑degree felony | Commonwealth: conceded the sentence was illegal | Court: Sentence illegal and vacated; remand for resentencing |
| Whether the revocation sentence was manifestly excessive for failure to consider § 9721(b) | Howard: court abused discretion by not considering personal history, character, rehabilitative needs | Commonwealth: did not contest illegality; discretionary claims became moot after vacatur | Court: Moot in light of vacatur for illegality |
| Whether the trial court relied on impermissible/unrecorded information | Howard: trial court considered improper factors not in record | Commonwealth: argument not pursued given concession | Court: Moot after vacatur |
| Scope of appellate review for revocation sentences | Howard: challenges to legality preserved; illegal sentence may be corrected on appeal | Commonwealth: N/A | Court: Review limited to revocation validity and sentence legality; illegal sentences reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 888 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2005) (scope of review after probation revocation limited to revocation validity and sentence legality)
- Commonwealth v. Tanner, 61 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2013) (illegal-sentence challenges cannot be waived and may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. McKown, 79 A.3d 678 (Pa. Super. 2013) (issues of sentence legality reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentences lacking statutory authorization are illegal)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (cumulative incarceration plus probation in a split sentence may not exceed statutory maximum)