Com. v. Martinez-Maldonado, M.
1756 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Melvin Eduardo Martinez-Maldonado had multiple retail-theft and controlled-substance convictions across four dockets and received probationary sentences and county jail terms between 2014–2016.
- Probation was revoked in February 2016 (lead dockets) and again after a September 1, 2016 revocation hearing based on electronic-monitoring violations, leaving approved-address violations, unapproved late-night absences, driving on a suspended license, and discovery of hypodermic needles.
- At the September 1, 2016 revocation hearing the court revoked probation and imposed aggregate state-prison terms (including an aggregate 18–36 month sentence on one docket and other concurrent and consecutive terms across dockets).
- Martinez-Maldonado filed post-sentence motions, then a PCRA petition to reinstate appellate rights; the court reinstated appeal rights and denied the post-sentence motion, and he appealed.
- On appeal he challenged only the discretionary aspects of the sentence, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order a presentence investigation (PSI) report and imposed an excessive sentence given the technical nature of some violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by dispensing with a PSI before revocation sentencing | Martinez-Maldonado: court should have ordered a PSI so the court could assess his character and rehabilitation prospects | Trial court: discretionary; it had sufficient information from prior hearings, plea colloquies, and evidence at revocation hearings to substitute for a PSI | Court held no abuse of discretion; the record furnished sufficient information despite lack of explicit on-the-record reasons for dispensing with a PSI |
| Whether the aggregate 18–36 month sentence was excessive given technical violations | Martinez-Maldonado: sentence excessive in light of mostly technical noncompliance | Commonwealth/trial court: repeated violations, lack of amenability to community rehabilitation, prior opportunities justify incarceration | Court held sentencing was within discretion; court considered defendant’s record, violations, and character; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (noting discretionary-aspect challenges are not reviewable as of right)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (four-part threshold for appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (procedural requirements for raising discretionary-aspect sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 950 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (PSI often required for individualized sentencing; failure to obtain one can raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (sentencing judge must have sufficient information to determine circumstances of offense and character of defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (review standard — sentencing lies within trial court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (PSI necessity tied to individualized sentencing inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (technical noncompliance with Rule 702 can be harmless where record substitutes for a PSI)