Com. v. Lloyd, S.
Com. v. Lloyd, S. No. 2206 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Stephen Lloyd pleaded guilty to third-degree retail theft and received 11½–23 months’ incarceration plus a consecutive 4-year probationary term; he was paroled immediately under conditions including inpatient drug treatment.
- Lloyd missed intake for treatment, repeatedly failed to report to probation, and tested positive for cocaine; probation filed a Gagnon II report.
- At a June 16, 2016 violation-of-probation (VOP) hearing, the court found Lloyd in direct violation and revoked probation.
- The court resentenced Lloyd to 2½–5 years’ confinement (no probation tail). Lloyd filed timely post-sentence motions and appealed, raising discretionary-sentencing claims.
- The trial court conceded it erred by not stating reasons on the record for dispensing with a presentence investigation (PSI), but the Superior Court found most challenges waived and addressed only the preserved claim.
Issues
| Issue | Lloyd's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court imposed an unreasonable sentence by failing to balance rehabilitative needs against gravity of violation under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) | Lloyd: Resentencing to total confinement (2½–5 yrs) for technical violations was excessive; he cooperated and sought treatment and deserved alternatives (e.g., county treatment or back-time) | Court: Sentence within statutory range; extensive prior record (32 retail-theft convictions), failures to comply with treatment, and need to vindicate court authority justified confinement | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; court properly balanced factors and reasonably escalated sanctions |
| Whether court violated § 9771(c) by imposing total confinement absent new conviction or high risk of reoffense | Lloyd: § 9771(c) limits confinement after revocation; he had no new conviction and took steps toward treatment | Commonwealth: § 9771(c) requires discretionary findings; trial court found likelihood of reoffense and need to vindicate authority based on record | Waived: Claim not preserved at sentencing or in post-sentence motion; thus not reviewed |
| Whether court abused discretion by failing to order a PSI before resentencing | Lloyd: No PSI meant sentencing lacked essential information | Commonwealth: Issue not raised below; court had evidentiary hearing and testimony | Waived: Not preserved; claim not reviewed |
| Whether court erred by failing to state reasons on the record for not ordering a PSI (Pa.R.Crim.P.) | Lloyd: Rule requires on-the-record reasons when dispensing with PSI | Trial court: Conceded error in Rule 1925 opinion but issue was not preserved for appeal | Waived: Not preserved; appellate review barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to consider rehabilitative needs implicates discretionary sentencing review)
- Schutzues v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2012) (application of § 9771(c) involves trial court discretion)
- Flowers v. Commonwealth, 950 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to order a PSI raises discretionary sentencing claim)
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discretionary-sentencing claims require satisfying appellate procedural thresholds)
- Evans v. Commonwealth, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for invoking appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellant must articulate reasons why sentencing judge violated Sentencing Code to present substantial question)
- Riggs v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2012) (claim that court failed to consider sentencing criteria can raise a substantial question)
- Malovich v. Commonwealth, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (bald assertions of sentencing error insufficient to raise substantial question)
- Hoch v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)