Com. v. Jackson, T., 721 WDA 2017

Appellant Troy Jackson pled guilty in 2013 to firearms, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person; received 9 months intermediate punishment and 3 years probation.
No direct appeal from the original 2013 sentence; probation later revoked after a 2015 conviction for possession of a controlled substance and a summary traffic offense.
At the September 15, 2015 probation-violation hearing the court revoked probation and sentenced Jackson to 4 to 10 years’ incarceration; post-sentence motions denied and appellate rights were eventually reinstated.
Superior Court remanded for resentencing to determine RRRI eligibility; a resentencing hearing occurred April 25, 2017, where the court found Jackson not RRRI-eligible and reimposed 4 to 10 years with credit for time served.
Jackson timely appealed, raising (1) that the trial court relied on incorrect factual information about his criminal history, and (2) that the court failed to consider the sentencing factors in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court rely on incorrect facts when resentencing?	Jackson argued the court misstated timing of prior convictions (made them appear recent) and relied on that misinformation.	Commonwealth: the misstatement was minor; court knew correct dates from record and did not rely on erroneous facts.	Court affirmed — misstatement was minor, record shows correct info, no reliance on false assumptions.
Did the court fail to consider 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) factors?	Jackson argued the court ignored mitigating rehabilitation evidence and failed to consider protection of public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitation.	Commonwealth: court considered mitigation, heard counsel and family, had PSIs, and explicitly indicated it considered evidence before imposing sentence.	Court affirmed — record shows consideration of § 9721(b) factors and PSIs; no abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standards for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)
Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sentencing court abuse of discretion when relying on incorrect factual assertions)
Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2010) (due process violated when sentencing court considers unreliable information)
Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592 (Pa. Super. 2016) (presumption that court considered relevant information when PSI exists)
Commonwealth v. Karash, 452 A.2d 528 (Pa. 1982) (court violates due process by considering unreliable or unfair information at sentencing)