Com. v. Petrillo, H.
131 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Appellant Hank Calvin Petrillo pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit PWID; court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 27 to 54 months.
- Petrillo filed a timely post-sentence motion asking the sentencing order to authorize placement in the Department of Corrections’ Motivational Boot Camp (six-month program emphasizing discipline and substance-abuse treatment).
- The Commonwealth opposed boot camp eligibility, citing Petrillo’s lengthy prior record and logistical concerns with another county sentence.
- The trial court denied the request and then denied Petrillo’s post-sentence motion; Petrillo timely appealed.
- Petrillo argued the court abused its discretion by refusing to designate him eligible for boot camp and failed to account for his rehabilitative needs.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Petrillo failed to raise a substantial question and, alternatively, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under the statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Petrillo's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of authorization for Motivational Boot Camp was an abuse of discretion | Court should have authorized boot camp placement because it best addresses his rehabilitative needs, especially addiction counseling | Court has discretion under 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b); boot-camp participation is discretionary and subject to selection committee approval; Petrillo’s prior record and logistics make him inappropriate | Denial affirmed: no substantial question shown; even on merits, no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary-aspect-of-sentencing challenges are not reviewable as of right)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part gateway for discretionary-sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural preservation and appellate review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2011) (substantial-question analysis is case-by-case)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defining substantial question standard)
- Commonwealth v. Naranjo, 53 A.3d 66 (Pa. Super. 2012) (substantial-question examples)
- Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2015) (allegation that court failed to weigh rehabilitative needs ordinarily does not raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2008) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 650 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 1994) (same)