Com. v. Plummer, C.
92 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- In 2005 Catina Plummer pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine; she received a negotiated sentence to intermediate punishment with house arrest and two years reporting probation.
- Between 2006 and 2008 Plummer incurred multiple technical violations (absconding, failing to complete evaluations, leaving treatment) leading to revoked probation and periods of incarceration and inpatient treatment placements.
- Released on parole in April 2010, Plummer accumulated repeated technical parole violations through 2016, including leaving treatment programs, failing to report, admitting recent cocaine use, and an incident where she defecated in a urine cup when asked to provide a sample; she was taken into custody in November 2016.
- At a December 15, 2016 revocation hearing the trial court found a fourth technical violation and sentenced Plummer to 2½ to 5 years’ state imprisonment (credit for time served) and ordered drug/mental-health treatment; the court stated the sentence was necessary to vindicate its authority.
- Plummer filed post-sentence motions and appealed, challenging the discretionary aspects of her sentence as excessive and unlawful given that violations were technical and related to substance abuse and mental illness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Plummer) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could impose total confinement after probation revocation for technical violations | Plummer: No new crime; record does not show likelihood of new crime; incarceration not essential to vindicate court authority | Court: Multiple prior violations, absconding, treatment failures, and ongoing drug use justify vindication of court authority under §9771(c)(3) | Affirmed — confinement was justified to vindicate court authority |
| Whether court failed to consider individualized factors (history, rehab needs) | Plummer: Court did not give individualized consideration or explain why this was the least restrictive means | Court: Explicitly considered her supervision history, treatment failures, mental/medical conditions, and need for prison programs | Affirmed — court considered required factors and explained reasons |
| Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given technical violations and mental-health–linked substance abuse | Plummer: Sentence disproportionate; related to substance abuse and mental illness | Court: Sentence within statutory maximum and within discretion after revocation; aimed to provide rehabilitation via prison programs | Affirmed — sentence not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedural requirements and analysis for discretionary-aspect sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (total confinement after technical probation violation implicates sentencing norms)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (same principle regarding total confinement for technical violations)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (court must state reasons on the record and consider protection of public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitative needs upon revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 56 A.3d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2012) (upon revocation, sentencing options are the same as at original sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural note on record omissions that could constitute waiver)