Com. v. Johnson, J.
2653 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Appellant James Johnson committed two separate armed robberies in Nov. 2012 (gunpoint robbery of a delivery driver and a lured victim) and later pled guilty to robbery, conspiracy, and PIC charges at two docket numbers.
- In March 2014 he received concurrent sentences of 11.5–23 months plus ten years probation and was immediately paroled.
- After a March 2015 arrest and conviction for another robbery, the Commonwealth filed probation-violation (VOP) proceedings.
- At the VOP hearing the court revoked probation and imposed four consecutive terms of 9–18 years, for an aggregate 36–72 years.
- Appellant sought reconsideration (arguing excessiveness and guideline mismatch), failed to timely appeal, successfully reinstated his appellate rights via PCRA, and raised (1) the court failed to state reasons on the record and (2) the sentence was manifestly excessive/not considering mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VOP court violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(D)(2) by failing to contemporaneously state reasons for sentence | Johnson: court failed to state reasons on the record; this procedural error warrants relief | Commonwealth: Johnson failed to contemporaneously object or raise this in motion for reconsideration, so claim is unpreserved | Not preserved — objection required; claim waived under Reaves framework |
| Whether the aggregate 36–72 year VOP sentence was manifestly excessive / failed to consider § 9721(b) mitigating factors | Johnson: sentence is excessive given culpability and court failed to adequately consider his background and rehabilitative needs; a lesser sentence would vindicate court authority | Commonwealth/Trial court: court considered the mitigating testimony, relied on prior leniency and the fact Johnson committed new robbery after being given a chance; § 9771(c) factors justify confinement | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered § 9721(b) factors alongside § 9771(c) and appropriately exercised sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (contemporaneous objection required when court fails to state reasons at VOP sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (VOP courts must consider § 9721(b) factors alongside § 9771)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (appellate courts must give deference to VOP courts’ sentencing decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (VOP court must consider § 9721(b) and § 9771(c) factors)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claim that sentence is manifestly excessive paired with failure-to-consider-mitigating-factors raises a substantial question)