Com. v. Jennings, R.
Com. v. Jennings, R. No. 1022 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- In 2005 Jennings pled guilty to two counts of PWID and one count of conspiracy and received an agreed 11½ to 23 months county sentence plus 1 year probation with immediate parole to a treatment program.
- Jennings absconded from supervision in October 2005; a warrant issued and she was not arrested until November 1, 2015 (found after a seizure and hospital fingerprinting under her married name).
- While absconding she was arrested and in 2009 convicted in Montgomery County of simple assault under a different name; that supervision later transferred to Philadelphia and she reported periodically in 2010–2011.
- A revocation/pre‑sentence investigation followed; at the March 4, 2016 revocation hearing the trial court found a technical violation, terminated parole, revoked probation, and imposed 11½ to 23 months incarceration plus 5 years probation.
- Jennings appealed, arguing (1) violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 708 speedy‑hearing rights from the 6½ year delay and (2) that the court abused its discretion in imposing a manifestly unreasonable custodial sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jennings) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jennings was denied a speedy revocation hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 708 by a ~6½ year delay | Delay prejudiced her (loss of employment) and hearing was unreasonably late | Delay attributable to Jennings because she absconded; minimal post‑arrest delay was not prejudicial | Court held delay attributable to Jennings; no Rule 708 violation (no prejudice shown) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by imposing a custodial sentence after revocation | Jennings argued confinement was unnecessary given rehabilitation, employment, and long period without new convictions post‑2007 | Trial court cited absconding, ten‑year failure to surrender, need to vindicate court authority; revocation statutes permit confinement where defendant convicted of another crime | Court affirmed sentence: within statutory authority (§9771 applies), trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 847 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2004) (factors for evaluating reasonableness of delay)
- Commonwealth v. Christmas, 995 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2010) (attribution of delay; prejudice requirement for speedy revocation claim)
- Commonwealth v. Gaus, 446 A.2d 661 (Pa. Super. 1982) (delays caused by defendant not attributed to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Marchesano, 544 A.2d 1333 (Pa. 1988) (definition of prejudice in probation revocation context)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (Sentencing Guidelines and §9721(b) do not constrain revocation sentencing; different standard applies)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing judge considered relevant information when PSI was available)