Com. v. Pace, A.
932 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- Appellant Andre Pace pled guilty to two simple assault charges and received two years’ probation.
- In May 2015, Pace’s probation was revoked after a new offense conviction and numerous technical violations.
- The sentencing court imposed two consecutive terms of 1 to 3 years each following revocation.
- A Motion to Reconsider Sentence was denied; Pace timely appealed challenging discretionary aspects of the sentence.
- The Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing with a requirement to apply 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9721(b) and 9771(c) on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing complied with §9721(b) and §9725 in revocation | Pace argues the court failed to consider relevant criteria and PSI-related considerations. | Commonwealth contends the revocation sentence was within discretion and substantial question analysis applies. | Remand required; court failed to show §9721(b) considerations. |
| Whether the absence of a PSI and lack of reasons for omission were error | Pace asserts the court did not order a PSI or justify its absence, impeding factor consideration. | Commonwealth contends no PSI required in this context and error not preserved. | Waiver improper; must remand for proper consideration of factors. |
| Whether the court relied on improper factors (unrelated cases) | Pace claims reliance on unrelated cases improperly influenced the sentence. | Commonwealth contends no improper factor was established or preserved. | Remand for proper articulation of reasons; issue partially preserved only as to §9721(b) considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (establishes four-part test for discretionary challenges after probation revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (limits review to substantial question and standards for revocation sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (necessity of reflecting crime facts and offender character post-revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (remand when court fails to explain rehabilitation-related reasoning under §9721(b))
- Commonwealth v. Kittrell, 19 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2011) (waiver rules for discretionary claims after sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (pre-sentence information can influence discretion and should be acknowledged)
- Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (limits and requirements for revocation sentencing and record articulation)