Com. v. Nichols, T.
19 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 20, 2017Background
- Timothy Nichols pled guilty in 2009 to forgery-related charges and was sentenced to 11.5–23 months plus three years probation; he subsequently had multiple probation revocations and resentencings.
- After repeated probation violations (including failures of multiple treatment/reentry programs and positive drug tests), the court reinstated probation in 2012 and again in 2015 but found a new violation on December 1, 2015.
- The trial court revoked probation and imposed a sentence of 4–8 years’ state incarceration on December 1, 2015; post-sentence motion denied December 10, 2015.
- Nichols appealed, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive because the court failed to adequately consider rehabilitative needs and community-based treatment alternatives.
- The trial court relied on an updated presentence report and the defendant’s documented history of failing or refusing approximately eight treatment programs when explaining the need for confinement to protect the public and vindicate the court’s authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Nichols) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 4–8 year sentence after probation revocation was an abuse of discretion | Sentence was proper given Nichols’ history, failures of treatment programs, and need to protect the public | Sentence was manifestly excessive; court failed to consider sufficiency of prior sanctions and availability of community-based treatment (rehabilitative needs) | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered rehabilitation and permissive factors and reasonably concluded incarceration was necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope of review from revocation includes discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary-sentence challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to consider § 9721(b) factors can raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard: sentence after revocation vested in trial court absent abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentencing alternatives after revocation are those available at initial sentencing; consider time on probation)